[pptp-server] PPTPD Problems

[lists at earthling.2y.net]

On Mon, 28 Jan 2002, Charlie Brady wrote:

>
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2002 lists at earthling.2y.net wrote:
>
> > Uhh... No.  This is not a good idea, it will confuse many many
> > applications,
>
> Not in my experience, no.

I have had problems before, and every once in a while I still see some
stuff have problems with more advanced setups.
>
> > not to mention just about every routing daemon out there,
>
> The routing daemon will always route using the destination IP address, not
> the source IP address, so I do not agree with you that this will be a
> problem.
>

Thats not an issue, the routing daemon setup understands that it
broadcasts onto X network, if X network appears on more than one
interface, it can freak, Another superuser on one of my secure gatways
often brings up an alias for the internal network, if ospfd is restarted
with that interface up, it dies.  To a degree this is unique because its
an alias, but its still an issue with duplicate addresses on the same
subnet.... its in a sence a diffrent issue, but its simulare in nature.

> > and freeswan.
>
> Perhaps, but the freeswan developers freely admit that there have been
> some problems with their routing code. Perhaps this isn't a problem with
> current versions.

Oh true, freeswan has many routing problems.  With the way that they plug
in, and then route with thier own routing table, somebody should have been
hurt for that.  I have noticed an bug with freeswan's internal routing
mechanism on alpha based systems, but the freeswan people don't really
listen, and blame it on setup, though I finally got them to admit there
was a problem.

It's not the routing code that complains.  The routing code does what you
tell it to do, but nobody likes how it was impmented.....  If memory
serves, its pluto that complains...  I have not started up freeswan on a
box with two distinct interfaces using the same ip in a while, so my
memory on this is fuzzy.

>
> > Potentially, you could set the localip to just about any ip, or the same
> > ip for all the interfaces, but things will still get confused, and
> > freeswan will wine.  Its best, just so your system dosent get confused to
> > use seperate addies for every endpoint.
>
> This should not be necessary, and I haven't found it so. YMMV.
>
True, it is not necessary, but I still hate it when freeswan would wine
about 20 diffrent interfaces with 10.0.0.7 as the ip......

*shrugs*

-Justin



-- 
Justin Kreger, MCP MCSE CCNA
jkreger at earthling.2y.net jwkreger at uncg.edu justin at wss.net