As Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > phk has chosen 0.0.0.1 since it obviously cannot be a meaningful > > statically configured address.
> OK, but is it really necessary? It's much simpler to add routes > over P2P interfaces using the interface name ... You need to configure /some/ interface address for the remote end anyway, and it must not clash with any other routing table entry, since "ifconfig ... up" always adds an entry for the remote IP address for p2p interfaces. (Actually, it even tries to enter it twice, so you get a meaningless "Address already exists." message when bringing a p2p interface up with ifconfig.) The politically correct solution to negotiate the remote PPP address would have been to change the routing table entry after negotiating the address, of course. However, this seemed to be too much hassle for the small&simple intent of sppp(4), in particular considering that the only added value compared to the 0.0.0.1 hack would be that you can reach the IP address of your peer directly. -- cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
