On Sep 24, Vassilii Khachaturov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Then you are not using PPTP to your modem but to your ISP, your modem is
> > behaving correctly and you don't need pppoeconf at all, because there is
> > no way we can know the details of PPTP tunneling used by every provider.
> pppoe
> Then you are not using PPTP to your modem but to your ISP, your modem is
> behaving correctly and you don't need pppoeconf at all, because there is
> no way we can know the details of PPTP tunneling used by every provider.
pppoe does run locally over the eth0, and the modem is correctly
discover
On Sep 23, Vassilii Khachaturov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Then the modem is configured as a router and you don't need need PPTP
> > at all...
> Marco, you seem to have forgotten another portion of the info I had
> mentioned earlier in the thread (to another portion of the same mail I had
> re
> > It is a gateway and does work as such. Did I not write in my last e-mail
> > that *without* starting pppoe one can reach the provider's WAN via the
> > default route going via the speedtouch?
> Then the modem is configured as a router and you don't need need PPTP
> at all...
Marco, you seem to
On Sep 23, Vassilii Khachaturov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It is a gateway and does work as such. Did I not write in my last e-mail
> that *without* starting pppoe one can reach the provider's WAN via the
> default route going via the speedtouch?
Then the modem is configured as a router and you
> > Marco has pretty much summed it up. I fail to see though why the modem asking
> > the host to consider the modem the default gateway is a bug. The routing
> Because the modem is not a gateway and will not work as such?
[snip]
> If the speedtouch DHCP server really provides a default route whe
On Sep 23, Vassilii Khachaturov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Marco has pretty much summed it up. I fail to see though why the modem asking
> the host to consider the modem the default gateway is a bug. The routing
Because the modem is not a gateway and will not work as such?
> I think that to a
On Tuesday 21 September 2004 00:12, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 20, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which loop? I do not know why your modem has an own IP, maybe it is a
> > router and not a modem? Why does it give your local systems DHCP
> > adresses? How are they related to whatever
On Sep 20, Eduard Bloch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Which loop? I do not know why your modem has an own IP, maybe it is a
> router and not a modem? Why does it give your local systems DHCP
> adresses? How are they related to whatever is connected there? Or maybe
> it is not a usual PPPoE modem bu
#include
* Vassilii Khachaturov [Mon, Sep 20 2004, 11:51:31AM]:
> > PS: I won't clone 265183, there are already enough bug reports to the
> > pppoe module problem.
>
> But what about the routing loop problem I had mentioned in the original
> 265183 report? It is something pretty confusing for a
> As said to the previous bug reporters, it is simply not my job to load
> _kernel_ modules for some other package. It would just additional
> complexity while there are other places where it must be fixed. I agree
> that this bug looks very shameful for a fresh Debian release so it
> should be rel
The thing that happens as a by-product of pppoeconf that enables the
pppoe to work later on is the loading of the pppoe module. So to have
pppoe working after reboot, `modprobe pppoe' is needed before `pon
dsl-provider'. I think pppoeconf should have done something differently
with the files it gen
severity 263224 serious
reassign 262941 modutils
severity 262941 serious
merge 262941 263224
thanks
#include
* Vassilii Khachaturov [Fri, Aug 13 2004, 08:50:58AM]:
> The thing that happens as a by-product of pppoeconf that enables the
> pppoe to work later on is the loading of the pppoe module. S
13 matches
Mail list logo
