On Thu, 11 Oct 2001, James Graham wrote:

> ppp0	192.168.1.1 -> 192.168.255.1		192.168.255.1 -> 192.168.1.1
> $eth0	10.240.41.156				10.240.41.174

> Currently, all default routes are going out the $eth port.  Ethernet
> works fine.
>
> Once ppp is going, I cannot even ping the local ppp address.  It does not
> respond.

It wouldn't. "pppd" doesn't add the route to "localhost" by default.
It doesn't really matter, but you could add it if you wanted to. For
the first host, that would be something like

  route add -host 192.168.1.1 localhost -netmask 255.255.255.255 -iface

> net.inet.ip.forwarding=1 on both systems.

If you're only intending to talk the the remote host, and nothing
else, you didn't even need that (but it shouldn't hurt).

> The current ip-up and ip-down scripts only seem to suggest adding a
> default route to the configuration, which kind of throws a wrench in the
> works since I don't WANT it to be a default route (I assumed that commenting
> it out would be the right thing to do, but no matter what I do, I cannot
> ping either end of the link).

You could add a static route to the other host:

 route add -host 192.168.255.1 192.168.1.1 -netmask 255.255.255.255

and vice-versa on 192.168.255.1, but "pppd" is supposed to create at
least the one route to the remote end by itself. Did you a give
"netmask" option to "pppd"? The default netmask for ppp0 (which would
be 255.255.255.0 for the 192.168.255 class C block) is probably no
good; 255.255.0.0 would seem to make sense here.

"netstat -in" will show you the routing table entries for your
interfaces (including pppN); "netstat -rn" will show you the other
routing table entries.

Frederick