> I was recently told by a Liv tech that on LANs with multiple PMs and no
> subnetting to set the assigned addresses further apart than 30 (for a
> pm2e30). His reasoning was that if all 30 lines are being used, and, say 10
> users hang up at roughly the same time and 10 more connect, the IPs from the
> 10 that hang up may not be returned to the pool in time for the 10 new users
> to use and the PM may assign addresses above the original 30 in the pool.
> This is in regards to 3.3.3
This was at one time the case, but has been fixed long before 3.3.3 and
usually only went one or two IPs above the assigned pool or gave an
address of 0.0.0.0 . Either something is broken again in 3.3.3 or the
tech hasn't been brought up to speed in about a year.
> Seemed wrong to me, but I want to be sure.
> Comments?
With typical v.34 negotiation times of 15 to 20 seconds before carrier
detect goes high, this kind of race condition would be very unlikely.
With a lot of ISDN traffic it would be more plausible, but you'd have to
time it just so, and any of your users running MPP sessions would add
available IPs to the pool, as they would occupy two ports and one IP.
-- Jay Hennigan jay@west.net
-- WestNet: Internet service to Santa Barbara, Ventura and the world.
805-892-2133 805-289-1000 805-578-2121