Yes this clears it up, I'm not using ppp (or pptp) so I forgot all about it being considered an interface.
apt-get upgrade brain :) John On Thursday 14 February 2002 13:31, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote: > On 2002.02.14 17:35:55 +0100 John Cichy wrote: > > On Thursday 14 February 2002 11:27, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote: > > > > The > > > > reason I don't have it masquerading the DSL connection is I don't > > > > want > > > > > > to buy a second ISA NIC. > > > > > > If your DSL is anything like mine, you don't have to. I have all my > > > machines and my modem on the same hub, and use pptp to connect my > > > ancient 486 laptop to the 'net, and then use masquerading, all over the > > > same localnetwork. I have no idea if this works with pppoe, since > > > > that's > > > > > not how my adsl system is supposed to work. > > > > I have a question on this setup. Which machine is doing the the masq? It > > seems to me that if all the machines are connected to the same hub as the > > modem, arn't all machines 'exposed' to the internet through the dsl > > modem? What is your default route? The reason for the second nic (my > > understanding) is that all machines must connect through a single masq > > machine, so all traffic flows to nic_1 gets masq'd then goes to the > > internet > > through nic_2. > > The 486 that connects to the internet also does the masquearading. All > traffic flow to eth0, and gets masq'd, but then goes to the internet > through ppp0, which is in fact a ppp connection using pptp (which talks to > the modem via the very same eth0). To the rest of the network the modem is > just 10.0.0.138. Only the 486 is 'exposed'. I hope this clears things up. > If not, I'll explain more. > > Matijs.
