Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!newsfeed.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!irz401!orion.sax.de!uriah.heep!news
From: j@uriah.heep.sax.de (J Wunsch)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: PPP
Date: 20 May 1997 23:42:57 GMT
Organization: Private BSD site, Dresden
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <5ltcu1$ni@uriah.heep.sax.de>
References: <337DBEDE.7A8C@cannet.com> <5lp7th$42v@uriah.heep.sax.de>
<5lq3cf$6o1$1@polo.iquest.com>
Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch)
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.heep.sax.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Newsreader: knews 0.9.6
X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669
X-PGP-Fingerprint: DC 47 E6 E4 FF A6 E9 8F 93 21 E0 7D F9 12 D6 4E
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:41324
dougal@vespucci.iquest.com (Dougal Campbell) wrote:
> : Btw., stupid your provider for using a dynamic _gateway_ address on
> : each connection. While i can see a point in providing dynamic
> : _client_ addresses, there's absolutely no reason to not use the same
> : address on the remote end for all incoming connections. (At least, no
> : technical reason.)
>
> Well, actually, that's not an uncommon situation. If your dialin
> systems accomodate 2 PRIs each, and you have 4 PRIs and 2 of these
> chassis, you don't have much control over whether an incoming call will
> reach the first box or roll over into the second.
But this is irrelevant to the problem. Their local PPP ends of the
incoming links can still all come up with the same IP address, which
need not be related in any way to their ethernet address:
+--------------------------+
192.168.1.1 <--- PPP ---> 192.168.99.99 |
| | 50 Ohm
192.168.1.2 <--- PPP ---> 192.168.99.99 | _
| | |
192.168.1.3 <--- PPP ---> 192.168.99.99 194.101.33.44 -+
| | |
192.168.1.4 <--- PPP ---> 192.168.99.99 | |
| | |
192.168.1.5 <--- PPP ---> 192.168.99.99 | |
| | |
| Chassis 1 | |
+--------------------------+ |
|
+--------------------------+ |
192.168.2.1 <--- PPP ---> 192.168.99.99 | |
| | |
192.168.2.2 <--- PPP ---> 192.168.99.99 | |
| | |
192.168.2.3 <--- PPP ---> 192.168.99.99 194.101.33.45 -+
| | |
192.168.2.4 <--- PPP ---> 192.168.99.99 | |
| | |
192.168.2.5 <--- PPP ---> 192.168.99.99 | |
| | |
| Chassis 2 | |
+--------------------------+ |
|
+---...
...might be a totally valid configuration. In this example, obviously
using address translation and/or proxy mode, just to illustrate my
point. Note that all the clients see just 192.168.99.99 as their
gateway address, regardless of which port they come in.
--
cheers, J"org
joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)