Re: ppp analog bonding w/ eql
On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> My testing has been with 2.0.34 on both ends. Have you tried it on
> that version Lindsay?
Yes, fine on .34.
> On Thu, Jun 25, 1998 at 10:26:48PM -0700, George Bonser wrote:
> > ALso, maybe I am misunderstanding you but I thought that eql was only
> > designed for serial devices. Also note that both network interfaces need
> > the same IP address. In other words, if you have two dialup connections,
> > they both need to be the SAME IP Address for EQL to work.
>
> Hmmm. I got the impression that it should work on any link. They use
> plip as an example in the doco, I think. I did try it with the same IP
> on both links (a bit weird on ethernet but anyway) and didn't seem to
> get anywhere further. I'll try again soon and check out the kernel list.
Hmm, I think they talk about slip rather than plip. I would not have
dreampt of trying it with ethernet, but why not?
From: Marsh Ray <marsh_du@ad-hoc.gainesville.fl.us>
> The thing with eql is you need a linux box on both ends of the
> connections. Our company put a linux box out at our ISP's site
> so we can use eql. They're a small ISP and easy to work with.
Not correct. Livingston Portmasters support eql. My problem is that my
ISP has four PMs and as I dial in through a rotary it is pot luck as to
which box I get. eql requires that all lines be to the same box and
that's where it gets difficult and expensive. I now have FreeBSD 2.2.6
here and will try that.
I followed up the altavista idea and found Michael Bruck's web page
http://mp.ins-coin.de/ but he has dropped the project due to lack of time.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Lindsay Allen <allen@cleo.murdoch.edu.au> Perth, Western Australia
voice +61 8 9316 2486 32.0125S 115.8445E vk6lj Debian Linux
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: