Re: (PM) PM3 ROUTING Problem

Tom Fellenz (tlf@livingston.com)
Sat, 10 Jan 1998 10:15:16 -0800

At 10:37 PM 1/9/98 -0600, Jake Messinger wrote:
>On Fri, 9 Jan 1998, Tom Fellenz wrote:
>
>> set user-netmask on
>>
>> This allows user profiles with non host (32 bit) masks to have
>> those netmasks be asserted on the port they connect to.
>> If 'user-netmask' is off (which it is by default), all users
>
>Im curious...
>Why is it off by default? If the netmask is not 32 bits, wouldnt you want
>the netmask on and asserted for that port?

Because we DO NOT set the ether0 interface as the highest priority
(which I've also RFE'd).

Say a PM3 with a ether0 address of 192.168.10.1/24 has a assigned pool
from 192.168.10.32 with 48 addresses...

If a user with these parameters should connect:
Framed-Address = 255.255.255.254, (dynamic pool)
Framed-Netmask = 255.255.255.0 (24 bit mask)

say he is assigned .36

With the 'user-netmask' on, the user would connect with this route:

192.168.10.0 24 192.168.10.36 local NL 1 ptpX

This route would squash the local ether0 route and redirect all packets
that were destined to the ether0 segment out to the user on ptpX.

UGLY!

So, before anyone turns 'user-netmask' on, please be sure NONE of
your user profiles have netmasks with the same length as the ether0
IF the address they use is in the same subnet as the ether0.

Tom

-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.