Re: nos-tun & multihomed machines
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai wrote: > -On [20010316 10:43], Eugene Polovnikov ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > >Please, review the following PR: > >http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=25847 > > > >Same patch is in the attach. > > Just a question, > > the gif interface now part of the system does tunneling as well in as > much the same way as nos-tun does. Does gif work for the multihomed > case? [I'll otherwise when not getting any responses dig up the answer > myself.] > I ask this because it serves no purpose having an IPv4-only [as far as > my knowledge goes] tunnel application, whilst we have a more flexible > new solution present. > > Translated, does gif do what nos-tun can do and more? Yes? Let's rip > out nos-tun and support the other well maintained solution. .. and, if you've compiled in the gif interface, you can't actually open a raw IP socket to the IPIP protocol, since the gif interface has it. This isn't documented anywhere, and its bitten me more than once (the error message returned isn't exactly the most helpful..) That said, nos-tun is a nice and simple example of how one would use the tunnel interface in their own program. Perhaps we might want to move it to /usr/share/examples/ ? Adrian, who now runs gif instead of nos-tun .. -- Adrian Chadd"Programming is like sex: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> One mistake and you have to support for a lifetime." -- rec.humor.funny To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE
Brett Glass wrote: > > I need to move a PPP link from a pair of modems to a wireless network. > The wireless network has MAC layer bridges with Ethernet ports, so > basically what I need to do is reconfigure the client (running FreeBSD > 3.2 with security patches and userland PPP) and the server (also running > FreeBSD 3.2 with security patches, but with kernel PPP) to communicate > via PPPoE rather than via the modems. Why use PPPoE -- you really prefer to toss away gobs of bandwidth? -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE
At 07:27 AM 4/1/2001, Wes Peters wrote: >Why use PPPoE -- you really prefer to toss away gobs of bandwidth? I don't see why it should be that inefficient. In fact, I've been thinking that due to header compression it might even be a bit faster. I'm doing it because we need a a machine on a wireless network to appear to be located at the hub. PPPoE creates a "tunnel" that does that. The way the network is set up, not all of the nodes can hear one another, but all can communicate with the hub. Using PPPoE makes the traffic go through the hub without subnetting (which would require reconfiguring many machines, some of which I do not administer). Could you suggest a better solution? --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE
On Sun, 1 Apr 2001, Brett Glass wrote: > At 07:27 AM 4/1/2001, Wes Peters wrote: > > >Why use PPPoE -- you really prefer to toss away gobs of bandwidth? > > I don't see why it should be that inefficient. In fact, I've been > thinking that due to header compression it might even be a bit > faster. It IS terribly inefficient. Header compression doesn't do much for you. Ethernet over ATM overhead sucks enough, no need to add PPP headers. > I'm doing it because we need a a machine on a wireless network > to appear to be located at the hub. PPPoE creates a "tunnel" that > does that. The way the network is set up, not all of the nodes can > hear one another, but all can communicate with the hub. Using PPPoE > makes the traffic go through the hub without subnetting (which > would require reconfiguring many machines, some of which I do > not administer). Could you suggest a better solution? I'm hacking on a 'magic box' solution, which will essentially listen for ARP packets from box A to box B, reply with its own MAC, and then forward ethernet packets back onto the same wire, rewriting the MACs appropriately. -alex To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Re: Transition from modem PPP to PPPoE
At 05:12 PM 4/1/2001, Alex Pilosov wrote: >I'm hacking on a 'magic box' solution, which will essentially listen for >ARP packets from box A to box B, reply with its own MAC, and then forward >ethernet packets back onto the same wire, rewriting the MACs >appropriately. Sort of like static NAT. I was thinking of giving the machine a reserved address and doing static NAT for it, in and out of the same interface. Only problem with this is that the box at the far end is doing NAT for the machines behind it, too. So we'd get two layers of NAT. Slow. --Brett To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
