Re: pppd progress

[Skip Franklin <franklsd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

---Wesley Leonard <x95leonard@wmich.edu> wrote:
> I was talking with a fellow computer club member who suggested this
was
> the result of a bug (ie, Linux not anticipating someone using both
> ethernet and ppp interfaces).  Can anyone verify this?  He suggested I
> look at the ifup scripts...

I had a similar problem when I set up a machine to serve as the modem
connection for my home network. I was trying to use IP masq. to allow
all my machines Internet access. What I eventually did was modify the
startup scripts to remove the default route on my eth0 interface on
bootup (I put it in rc.local, but you can modify the ifup script if
you'd rather.) When you start pppd after that (with the defaultroute
option, as has been suggested several times), it will add a default
route and be happy. Your ethernet inteface should be OK, as long as
you have the proper netmask set (mine is something like IP 192.168.1.1
and netmask 255.255.0.0).

I'm not sure about the bug thing, but if it is a bug, I'd guess that
it's in pppd. The defaultroute option ought to remove any pre-existing
default routes, but it doesn't do so in my version.

===
Skip Franklin
sfranklin@mindless.com | ICQ 6864315
http://www.cs.rose-hulman.edu/~franklsd

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com