> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-portmaster-users@livingston.com
> [mailto:owner-portmaster-users@livingston.com]On Behalf Of Christian
> Schmit
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 1999 08:12
> To: Michael Bryan
> Cc: portmaster-users@livingston.com
> Subject: Re: (PM) PM3 not dead-ending routes upon discon.
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I also would appreciate to see a real solution
> here from Lucent. You have to setup different filters
> on all portmasters so that a filter only covers
> the ip pool range of the portmaster that filter is
> installed on.
>
> Christian
>
> At 12:18 AM 4/29/99 , you wrote:
> >
> >Rick Kunze wrote:
> >>
> >>[...] What is happening, is that if
> >>the dial-up user drops connection, the PM3 forwards the inbound
> stream to
> >>the main router which in turn, forwards it back to the PM3 and
> so on, till
> >>it runs out of lives so to speak.
> >>
> >>Should not the PM3 show the IP address as not available? If I ping an
> >>address in the PM3 pool (one that is NOT currently in use) from
> within my
> >>network I get an "Expired in transit" reply from the IP address
> of the PM3
> >>itself!
> >>
> >>Is this correct?
> >
> >
> >This has been discussed before, check the list archives. Some
> representative
> >articles are:
> >
> > http://www.livingston.com/tech/archive/portmaster-users/9802/1459.html
> > http://www.livingston.com/tech/archive/portmaster-users/9801/1481.html
> >
> >Bottom line --- quite a few people have complained about it, but so far
> >Lucent (and Livingston before them) has shown no interest in changing
> >this behaviour in ComOS. Instead, their answer is that you should
> >create a filter on the ethernet port so that outbound traffic is
> >dropped if the destination is an address within your assigned pool.
> >As a simple example, if you have an assigned address of 192.168.1.128,
> >and a pool size of 48, you could do the following:
> >
> > add filter ether.out
> >
> > set filter ether.out 1 deny 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.128/27
> > set filter ether.out 2 deny 0.0.0.0/0 192.168.1.160/28
> > set filter ether.out 3 permit 0.0.0.0/0 0.0.0.0/0
> >
> > set ether0 ofilter ether.out
> >
> > save all
> >
> >Rule 1 stops bounced packets for the first 32 addresses
> >in the pool, rule 2 stops bounced packets for the next 16.
> >If you have other filtering needs for the ethernet interface,
> >you could incorporate the above into that filter.
> >
> >
> >I still think Lucent should change ComOS so that it returns
> >an appropriate ICMP message when this happens. This issue
> >comes up on a regular basis, and although it -can- be worked
> >around with an appropriate filter, there are obviously a lot
> >of people who don't know about this until they notice it
> >causing problems and investigate it.
> >
> >What is the best/preferred way to officially request a ComOS
> >RFE from Lucent?
> >
> >
> >Michael Bryan
> >pmu@ursine.com
> >
> >-
> >To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
> >'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
> >Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>
> >
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
> 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
> Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>
>
-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>