> On Fri, 7 May 1999, Stephen R. van den Berg wrote:
>
> :Picture this:
> :
> :2 PM3s, connected to the physical same ethernet (through a switch),
> :but the first PM3 has:
> :
> :IP: 10.0.1.9 netmask 255.255.255.248
> :
> :and the second one has:
> :
> :IP: 10.0.1.17 netmask 255.255.255.248
> :
> :Now, if someone dials in on the first PM3, and opens up a second
> :line through Multilink PPP on the other PM3, can both channels
> :still be united in one MPPP session?
>
> I dont see why not as long as your routing (ospf?) is set up right.
Well I'd find out if set endpoint XXXXXXXXXXXX (12-digit hex?) is set...
> :Would adding a subinterface which is in the same network with the other
> :PM3 help?
>
> It would eliminate the need for routing but I think it should work. Why, are
> you not able to get it working?
Well, it sounds like Stephen may be confusing technologies..
MCPPP (Multi-Chassis PPP) needs to be on same segment _and_ endpoint
discriminator set. OH, and ComOS should be 3.8.x (some 3.7.x might but
that's ooooold) so that you can do MLPPP on Async for PM3.
-- Aloha from Paradise,Sherwood Got Clue? If so: ISPF! The Forum for ISPs by ISPs, <http://www.ispf.com>
- 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/>