[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

ISDN Config - Default Gateway



 Hello Debian users,

After using first Slackware and then SuSE, I am now eagerly trying Debian. As I have several years experience as a Solaris system programmer/administrator, I am a bit embarrassed to admit that I cannot get a working ISDN connection via my German T-Online ISP with the debian system. The connection performs flawlessly on my SuSE system so I can't blame Deutsche Telecom. I would very much appreciate any help anyone can provide me to get me headed in the right direction. The ability to precisely tailor a system and then keep it updated <on the fly> is my goal which I believe Debian will support while SuSE has not.

I have spent several hours configuring the HiSax HFC-PCI card and editing the scripts in /etc/isdn especially device.ippp0 and ipppd.ippp0 where I uncommented the defaultroute option. The scripts in /etc/ppp/ip-up.d and /etc/ppp/ip-down.d were also carefully examined.

The result is a connection with isdnctrl to the T-Online ISP. The nameserver IPs are properly set in the dynamic resolve.conf so can ping www.debian.org with no packet loss. When I attempt to connect with Mozzilla it reports a connection is made to www.debian.org. However, after a minute or so Mozilla reports that the connection was not accepted. Furthermore, isdnctrl and /var/log/isdn shows that the connection was hung up.

The output from ifconfig -a is comparable to a SuSE connection but netstat -r shows that the SuSE connection sets the default gateway to the remote IP address provided by T-Online while the debian connection routing table shows no gatewate setup for default even though the destination host is properly set.

Therefore, I suspect that my debian ISDN configuration is not setting the default gateway. I need someone's advice on where this is accomplished and what mistake I have made.

Thanks for considering my problem. I'm hoping for your assistance. In the meantime, Happy Thanksgiving to all.




Reply to: