RE: (PM) Netmask on dialup (fwd)

Chris Parker (cparker@starnetusa.net)
Mon, 08 Jun 1998 23:51:44 -0500

At 09:32 PM 6/8/98 -0700, Jerry Bacon wrote:
>Which is better (or what are the tradeoffs), to "set user-netmask on" and do
>it like the example below, or to leave "user-netmask off" and use an
>explicit route like:
>
>Framed-Route = "2xx.1xx.1xx.241/29 2xx.1xx.1xx.241 1"

I prefer the Framed-Route way, but that's because I proxy requests to
other servers, and not all of them remember to not give out a
netmask of 255.255.255.0. Plus with the Framed-Route statement, you
know exactly what you are doing.

>Also, is there any difference between Framed-IP-Address and Framed-Address
>(or for that matter Framed-IP-Route and Framed-Route)?

The Framed-IP-Address and Framed-IP-Route are the 'proper' syntax, the
other two are the older deprecated syntax, which is still supported for
compatability reasons. If you read the beginning of your dictionary file
you'll see what I'm talking about.

-Chris

--
   \\\|||///  \  Chris Parker: Systems Administration and Development
   \ ~   ~ /   \   cparker@starnetusa.net   \   cparker@megapop.net
   | @   @ |    \    www.starnetusa.net      \    www.megapop.net
oOo---(_)---oOo--\------------------------------------------------------
                  \ Without C we would have 'obol', 'basi', and 'pasal'


-
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/>