<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

Subject: Re: A minor problem...
From: Peter van den Heuvel <peter,AT,asylum,DOT,xs4all,DOT,nl>
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2001 00:17:32 +0200
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0108171413560.12619-100000@raid.kaico.com>

Yo!

> I understand your concern.
:)

> You might look into unnumbered PPP links.
In all truth, I never knew about the possibility. Thanks for pointing to
it! One nasty thing is that although it seems to work, it does not help
a lot to explain the new users how to look upon the matter. Also, a
quick search on Google does reveal that there is some controversy as to
the extent of usefullness of this technique.

A quick snippet:
> > > Quick question: is it possible to have unnumbered IP interfaces in 
>Linux?? 
> > > 
> > > An unnumbered IP interface uses another if's IP in case it needs one 
>(e.g. 
> > > a unnumbered PPP if may use the Ethernet IP). 
> > > 
> > What are you trying to do ? afaik unnumbered ifs are mostly useless 
>except 
> > for bundling and bgp load share tricks. You probably want to look at the 
> > multilink ppp and isdn master/slave stuff. 
> 
> If the box is a router and not generating any traffic (or at least very 
>little 
> traffic), point-to-point interfaces don't need an address... or in the case 
>that 
> they do generate traffic (ICMP unreach, etc) then they can use the address 
>of 
> another interface as configured.

As far as I did understand this and other teksts, the main purpose of
the technique seems to be to save costly official IP addresses in large
scale wan's. Hardly an issue for the private part of the network where
you have a full A range, 16 B ranges and 256 C ranges to waste.
Personally I prefer the most staightforward and simpel solution best;
sticking the required route in. But then, those are matters of
preference.

Again, thanks for the tip!

Peter





<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]