On Fri, Dec 07, 2001 at 09:01:12PM +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote: > 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. > Only if you have INET address configured on an interface.
> (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. > Why not just bring the interface up first, then negotiate an address, then add it to interface? [Please DO NOT exclude my personal address when replying -- I didn't ask for it (as many do) through the Mail-Followup-To: header.] Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG, [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
