Re: plip with mulinux

From: Dumas Patrice (
Date: Wed Aug 30 2000 - 21:50:36 CEST

Michele Andreoli a écrit :

> On Wed, Aug 30, 2000 at 04:16:43PM +0200, Dumas Patrice nicely wrote:
> > (I took that point of view from someone, I think you...).
> Not possible: this is a detailed opinion; I have only confused opinions,
> about :)
> > That is resolved how ?
> I have an Array() function in /etc/utils.

Goood. I will look ai it.

> >
> > > With the set of values relative to any interface, I can ask the user
> > > if defaultroute and gateway is belong this interface.
> >
> > Why not setup that in the common networking stuff ?
> Because, in this case, have to scan any configured
> interface and ask the user for netmask/gateway/broadcast

I don't think so. It seems to me that a gateway is global to all the interfaces. It is set
up with
route add default <address or host>
the address must have been previously declared with a static route.

> Anycase, this requires (as you told) some duplication in help
> messages about this parameters and theyr default values.

I think not, finally. I think that as this stuff will only be usefull for experimented
users, it won't need more help messages.

> >
> > > Summarizing (please help me):
> > >
> > > addr? network? defaultroute? (peer?)
> >
> > depending on the interface
> Yes. I summarized with the keyword (peer?) any special parameters
> for ppp/plip.

Yes, but I also think that it is not usefull to setup a network for plip in the interface
setup, as it is quite unusual.

> Please, discuss this topics:
> 1. I have to ask for netmask and broadcast for ANY interface?

Not necessary. For plip, for example, it isn't needed. But possible. If you want to route
packets via the plip interface, to a certain network, you can do this.

> 2. Any interfaces live in own subnetwork, or no?

Not necessarily. I think you can have 2 interfaces sharing a network, and also interfaces
without explicit network, in case of point to point communication.

> 3. the 'route' command istruct the kernel to move packet toward
> a specific interface, based on netmask. Now, is the ipfwadm
> command enough to fix rules moving packets from an
> interface to another, and what is the common policy?
> Michele

????????????? No idea about that !


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:15 CET