On Mon, 14 Aug 2006 22:48:55 -0400, Chris Zakelj wrote: >Chris 'Xenon' Hanson wrote: >> Chris Zakelj wrote: >>> Why not just a plain old DSL/10BaseT bridge and pppoe(8)? I agree that >>> it'd be great to have hardware plugged comfortably inside the system and >>> one less piece hanging off the power strip, but canacar@ and crew have >>> done an incredible job on it, to the point where even my old i486/33 >>> with a pair of ep(4) cards can handle residential (384/1.5 tested) DSL. >> My ISP uses PPPoA rather than PPPoE. >> >> PPPoA is in some ways, preferable, since you don't have the MTU >> issue of PPPoE. >It is helpful to include such details ;) At the office where I worked >roughly three years ago, we had a setup where the external modem handled >all the PPPoA aspects, but transparently handed off the public IP >address and forwarded all ports to the oBSD firewall I had set up. >Unfortunately, I forget the name of the company that made it, but it did >work quite well, Dynalink does it for almost any protocol you are likely to find short of outright bridging etc..
and didn't require any kind of extra configuration on >the firewall itself. How it did that, though, I haven't a clue. The RTA1320 Dynalinks expect a dhcp client but that's hardly extra. > > >From the land "down under": Australia. Do we look <umop apisdn> from up over? Do NOT CC me - I am subscribed to the list. Replies to the sender address will fail except from the list-server. Your IP address will also be greytrapped for 24 hours after any attempt. I am continually amazed by the people who run OpenBSD who don't take this advice. I always expected a smarter class. I guess not.
