[pptp-server] Problems with Subnet mask

[Wes Hamilton]

I too am using 255.255.255.0, and have set the netmask option in ppp -- and
even though it doesn't seem to have any effect shown in the routing table,
it seems to be working:

redhat 5.2 (kernel 2.036, pppd 2.3.5, pptpd 0.91)
server 10.0.1.1/24
local ip 10.0.1.2
remote ips 10.0.1.3-10

Client Win95 w/MSDUN1.3:
I connect and receive ip 10.0.1.3 (255.0.0.0 in routing table), yet I can
ping another host on the internal network (say 10.0.1.11/24) with no
problems.  Traceroute shows hop of 10.0.1.2.  (from the other direction,
traceroute shows hop of 10.0.1.1).

Of course, if you have another internal 10.x.x.x network, then you have a
problem.

Wes

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wes Hamilton           WESTERN MASSACHUSETTS    Technical Specialist
whamilton at wmrls.org   REGIONAL LIBRARY SYSTEM    (413) 247-9306 x126
--------------------------------------------------------------------


> -----Original Message-----
> From: pptp-server-admin at lists.schulte.org
> [mailto:pptp-server-admin at lists.schulte.org]On Behalf Of Chris Dos
> Sent: Monday, July 12, 1999 2:13 AM
> Cc: pptp-server at lists.schulte.org
> Subject: Re: [pptp-server] Problems with Subnet mask
>
>
> Oh yes I tried putting the mask option in pppd options file.  Had zero
> effect.  The server's nick is set correctly.  It's using a 255.255.255.0
> mask.  But I can't seem to make pppd send the correct one.  As a matter of
> fact, I was browsing through the archived mail from this list, and someone
> was having a problem getting the mast to set correctly.  His kept
> showing up
> as a 255.0.0.0 mask when he wanted a 255.255.255.0 mask.  He was using the
> 10.0.0.0 address range.  No one was able to find a solution to his problem
> then either. I'm using the 172.16.0.0 range.  Is there something
> hard coded
> into pppd that screws up if you use 10.0.0.0 or 172.16.0.0.  I don't think
> anyone has had problems using the 192.168.0.0 range.   Arrggg... Something
> that is so simple shouldn't be so difficult.  And above all, I
> don't want to
> set up a NT server to do this.  NT is just bad news.
>
> 	Chris
>
> tmk wrote:
> >
> > ahh, so pppd is sending the wrong netmask as well as using it locally. I
> > see. Just so we're clear, you DID try the netmask pppd option right?
> >
> > Kevin