Re: 486 SX (masquerading DSL connection)

[John Cichy <john@greengator.com>]

Yes this clears it up, I'm not using ppp (or pptp) so I forgot all about it 
being considered an interface. 

apt-get upgrade brain :)

John

On Thursday 14 February 2002 13:31, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote:
> On 2002.02.14 17:35:55 +0100 John Cichy wrote:
> > On Thursday 14 February 2002 11:27, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote:
> > > > The
> > > > reason I don't have it masquerading the DSL connection is I don't
> >
> > want
> >
> > > > to buy a second ISA NIC.
> > >
> > > If your DSL is anything like mine, you don't have to. I have all my
> > > machines and my modem on the same hub, and use pptp to connect my
> > > ancient 486 laptop to the 'net, and then use masquerading, all over the
> > > same localnetwork. I have no idea if this works with pppoe, since
> >
> > that's
> >
> > > not how my adsl system is supposed to work.
> >
> > I have a question on this setup. Which machine is doing the the masq? It
> > seems to me that if all the machines are connected to the same hub as the
> > modem, arn't all machines 'exposed' to the internet through the dsl
> > modem? What is your default route? The reason for the second nic (my
> > understanding) is that all machines must connect through a single masq
> > machine, so all traffic flows to nic_1 gets masq'd then goes to the
> > internet
> > through nic_2.
>
> The 486 that connects to the internet also does the masquearading. All
> traffic flow to eth0, and gets masq'd, but then goes to the internet
> through ppp0, which is in fact a ppp connection using pptp (which talks to
> the modem via the very same eth0). To the rest of the network the modem is
> just 10.0.0.138. Only the 486 is 'exposed'. I hope this clears things up.
> If not, I'll explain more.
>
> Matijs.