Re: 486 SX (masquerading DSL connection)
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 02:48:41PM -0500, dman scribbled...
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote:
> ...
>
> I too thought that putting the DSL modem on the hub (actually a switch
> in my case) wasn't the Right Way.
>
> | 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.
>
> Ahh, you have a "separate" PPP interface.
>
> My service is simply an ethernet card with a cable (crossover, IIRC)
> connected to the DSL modem. I use DHCP to get an IP and it's golden.
> (I used to have to "submit" a web form to "login" to my ISP (which I
> automated with a not-very-robust script) but they removed that
> annoyance!)
>
> I don't think it would work very well if any other machine on the
> subnet uses DHCP to obtain an address because then my "server" _and_
> the ISP would both get the broadcast request, but I only pay for 1 IP.
> It would probably work if there was a way to make the switch transfer
> data to the DSL modem _only_ from the gateway machine (and then only
> some of it!).
>
I've got a similar setup with cable. After a few weeks of research, I
concluded that the best way was to setup an IP masquerade box (mystique),
with a 10Mbps card connected to the cable modem, and a 100Mbps card
connected to my other machines through a switch. All the NICs on the switch
have IPs in the 192.168.1.* range. Mystique is a DHCP client to Cox (the
cable Co.), and a DHCP server to apocalypse (my notebook that connects to a
variety of networks, depending on my location), without any conflict.
Reply to: