But PortMaster's do. Of course, mose of the itme you just don't number
the BRI interface. You do PPP unnumbered and use the ether0 interface
for both.
>The ISP says that Livingston tech support set them up this way. I can't
>believe that would be true.
Sure, since that is how Lucent (Livingston is no more) units work. If
Cisco can't deal with it, then you'll need to get them to screw with it
to make it work with the Cisco. I'm surprised that the Cisco can't do
PPP unnumbered, are you sure?
>What can I tell my contact at the ISP to get him to correctly subnet on
>his end, and assign me usable IP's.
Frankly I can't see an ISP wasting IP space because a customer prem
router is too dumb to handle a single subnet. Sounds like a pain in
the ass for the ISP to have to give you one IP for the WAN and another
ranger for the ether. Can't the Cisco at LEAST do VLSM and split off an
IP for the PPP link?
-MZ
-- <URL:mailto:megazone@megazone.org> Gweep, author, webmaster, human being, me "A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men" 781-788-0130 <URL:mailto:megazone@gweep.net> <URL:http://www.megazone.org/> Hail Discordia! - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message. Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>