Subject: Re: Why netmask is needed for PPP
To: Peter Seebach <>
From: Phil Knaack <>
List: current-users
Date: 11/22/1996 08:31:21
>He`s quite right; we've had *lots* of trouble with ppp connections
>that have any netmask other than; the router appears
>to get completely munged, and adds any route within same class C
>as the target (i.e., any route I'm likely to add on a network this small)
>to that interface.

	Funny, because I find that a netmask of 0xffffffff *doesn't* work
in the slightest for my network.  I must set it to a class C at home to
make routing work.  Odd, no?

	(Of course, I don't have the luxury of choosing my IP numbers; I
have numbers nailed down for each machine, but there's no pattern that
can distinguish a machine on the 129.186.41.* subnet at work and the
129.186.41.* subnet at home.  Hence, I am forced to accept that if I want
a neighbor of the PPP host at home to talk to a neighbor of the PPP host
at work, I have to publish an ARP address on the PPP box at home. Yes,
this is disgusting, but I have little choice.)

>An alternative:  Perhaps route should let us specify which interface to use?
>This would be a great feature.

	Back when I used to run Lins*x Long Ago and Far Away, I thought this
was a really "nifty" feature of ifconfig.  Came in useful more than once.

Phillip F Knaack
Database Programmer, Information Development for Extension Audiences (IDEA)
Iowa State University Extension