I missed the part about the 2.0 kernel...I don't know if that complicates
things or not. With 2.2 and ipchains, it doesn't matter if you've got one
PPP interface or a thousand, if they're all assigned IP's encompased in a
single network specification, it's one ipchain rule to masquerade them.
Ass
Oh, and Dave was using a 2.0.x box, so I would guess ipchains would not
be an option - I don't know if this matters or not in terms of the
forwarding rules.
- Jon
Jonathan French wrote:
>
> Hi Charles,
>
> Um, my mindset was probably the old "if you have a hammer, every problem
> looks
Hi Charles,
Um, my mindset was probably the old "if you have a hammer, every problem
looks like a nail" situation. I have always required a proxy-arp
situation, so I hadn't considered separate ppp "hosts". So you can drop
the : (lets client specify) and proxyarp, and just get
a ppp interface,
Matt
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
David Douthitt
Sent: Friday, 9 November 2001 1:01 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Leaf-user] PPP server without proxy arp
Matthew Pozzi wrote:
> Now the flip side, if you do get it going pleas
At the risk of speaking without a clue as to your actual setup...
On an LRP box you can associate the PPP server IPs with the internal
masqueraded network, rather than with an external network (still
proxyarp). You may need to add a network card to create a fake internal
net...
Hope this is so
I can't find anything on this - how would one go about setting up a PPP
server that didn't use proxy arp?
Our ISP changed our IP allocation and yanked almost 200 IP addresses -
and now we don't have enough addresses for proxy arp.
I had originally wanted to set up PPPd to use particular IPs and
