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

PPPoE



Dear Debian Users

I have been working with a network problem the last two days without any result. I am posting this here in the hope that perhaps someone else can understand what I can't seem to figure out.

I am having to network card in my machine eth0 and eth1. eth0 is used in my local network at home and it is not the issue.

eth1 is used to connect to my ISP. My ISP is using FWA technology.

In my /etc/network/interfaces I used to have this:

auto lo
iface lo inet loopback

auto eth1
iface eth1 inet dhcp

auto eth0
iface eth0 inet static
address 192.168.0.1
netmask 255.255.255.0

As you can see all very simple.

Normally my ISP would use public IP's but has now decided to move to intern IP. This means that my eth1 now gets something like 10.x.x.x instead of the public one.

Since I very much would like a public IP my ISP made me a PPPoE connection which I have tested on windows XP where it works perfektly.

On debian I ran apt-get install pppoe pppoeconf
I then ran the pppoeconf

In the debian reference I read about using PPPoE and I then changed the /etc/network/interfaces to:

auto lo
iface lo inet loopback

iface eth1 inet ppp
provider dsl-provider

auto eth0
iface eth0 inet static
address 192.168.0.1
netmask 255.255.255.0

When I use pon dsl-provider and then ifconfig I get:

eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:50:04:41:5A:67
          inet addr:192.168.0.1  Bcast:192.168.0.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:10945 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:14005 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
          RX bytes:1169319 (1.1 MiB)  TX bytes:4020685 (3.8 MiB)
          Interrupt:10 Base address:0xa000

eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:60:97:A5:79:5F
          inet addr:10.10.0.93  Bcast:10.31.1.255  Mask:255.255.254.0
          UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
          RX packets:47349 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:697 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
          RX bytes:4585915 (4.3 MiB)  TX bytes:45761 (44.6 KiB)
          Interrupt:9 Base address:0x9800

lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
          inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
          UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
          RX packets:430 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:430 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
          RX bytes:44762 (43.7 KiB)  TX bytes:44762 (43.7 KiB)

ppp0      Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
          inet addr:80.110.21.5  P-t-P:10.254.0.1  Mask:255.255.255.255
          UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST  MTU:1484  Metric:1
          RX packets:8 errors:1 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
          TX packets:7 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
          collisions:0 txqueuelen:3
          RX bytes:649 (649.0 b)  TX bytes:109 (109.0 b)

All looks fine and ppp0 has got the right IP. If I run route I get:

Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
10.254.0.1      *               255.255.255.255 UH    0      0        0 ppp0
192.168.0.0     *               255.255.255.0   U     0      0        0 eth0
10.10.0.0       *               255.255.254.0   U     0      0        0 eth1
default         10.254.0.1      0.0.0.0         UG    0      0        0 ppp0

All looks fine. But when I ping I can't reach anything.

ping www.google.dk
ping: unknown host www.google.dk

ping 212.242.40.3
PING 212.242.40.3 (212.242.40.3): 56 data bytes
ping: sendto: Operation not permitted
ping: wrote 212.242.40.3 64 chars, ret=-1
ping: sendto: Operation not permitted
ping: wrote 212.242.40.3 64 chars, ret=-1

--- 212.242.40.3 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100% packet loss

What am I doing wrong?

The kernel is running with the necessary pppoe driver.

Thanks in advance

Regards,
Kim



Reply to: