PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem) - PPP

This is a discussion on PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem) - PPP ; Hello, I am working on a PPP stack designed to be running on an embedded device in order to give access to a tiny HTTP administration server. I works now quite well, but as PPP is normally designed to access ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem)

  1. PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem)

    Hello,

    I am working on a PPP stack designed to be running on an embedded device in
    order to give access to a tiny HTTP administration server.

    I works now quite well, but as PPP is normally designed to access Internet
    from a client machine, it appears that all TCP/IP request are automatically
    routed through the dialup server once connected, because the client machine
    normally set up its default route via this server's address.

    That means that, because of this default route setting, the client machine
    no longer have access to Internet if it was previously able to use Internet
    by a different method, until the PPP connection is closed. It can only
    access the dialed device, "thinking" that this device is an Internet Service
    Provider...

    I am wondering if there is any way to have it differently configured, by
    asking the dialing computer to not set the default route, and instead having
    it to just set a host or a network route to the device's IP or to the device
    network, so the client machine would be able to access simultaneously the
    embedded server machine and any Internet access that it had before
    establishing the connection.

    I read the RFC 1332 and RFC 1877 about IPCP negociation, but there doesn't
    seem to be any configuration item inside them allowing the server to tell
    the client how to configure its network routing.

    Of course, I know how to manually set up this routing after the connection
    is established, but I expect it to be used by people with little or no
    networking knowledge, so it would be great if I could set up this
    transparently without asking the user to make non standard PPP
    configurations, and having this working whatever kind of OS (Windows, Mac
    OS, Linux ...) is used by this user.

    So my question is basically : is there any way to configure the dialup
    server for telling the dialing machine that he is NOT an ISP and that only a
    very small segment of the global network will be handled by the dialup
    server ?

    Maybe somebody have already met this kind of problem ?

    Gingko



  2. Re: PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem)

    "Gingko" writes:
    > I am working on a PPP stack designed to be running on an embedded device in
    > order to give access to a tiny HTTP administration server.
    >
    > I works now quite well, but as PPP is normally designed to access Internet
    > from a client machine,


    No, it's not "normally designed" to do that. PPP (the protocol at
    least) is a link layer protocol that can carry arbitrary network
    layers.

    Some *implementations* do behave as you describe. But that's an
    implementation choice, not something driven by either the relevant
    standards or by underlying requirements of PPP itself.

    > it appears that all TCP/IP request are automatically
    > routed through the dialup server once connected, because the client machine
    > normally set up its default route via this server's address.


    That's a matter of routing configuration.

    > That means that, because of this default route setting, the client machine
    > no longer have access to Internet if it was previously able to use Internet
    > by a different method, until the PPP connection is closed. It can only
    > access the dialed device, "thinking" that this device is an Internet Service
    > Provider...


    Again, this has nothing to do with PPP. You're talking about routing.
    You might want to try another group, such as comp.protocols.tcp-ip,
    instead.

    By default, PPP with IPCP provides just a point-to-point IP link. It
    does *NOT* provide access to the Internet or any other such thing.
    That's a matter of IP routing configuration.

    Some PPP implementations have a feature that allows them to change
    routing configuration. This has nothing to do with PPP itself; it's a
    convenience feature. If yours does that and isn't configurable as you
    need, then complain to the vendor of that software, or get a better
    implementation.

    > I am wondering if there is any way to have it differently configured, by
    > asking the dialing computer to not set the default route, and instead having
    > it to just set a host or a network route to the device's IP or to the device
    > network, so the client machine would be able to access simultaneously the
    > embedded server machine and any Internet access that it had before
    > establishing the connection.


    Sure. You'll need to mention what platform you're using and what
    software.

    > I read the RFC 1332 and RFC 1877 about IPCP negociation, but there doesn't
    > seem to be any configuration item inside them allowing the server to tell
    > the client how to configure its network routing.


    Right. It has nothing to do with the protocol. This is intentional.

    > Of course, I know how to manually set up this routing after the connection
    > is established, but I expect it to be used by people with little or no
    > networking knowledge, so it would be great if I could set up this
    > transparently without asking the user to make non standard PPP
    > configurations, and having this working whatever kind of OS (Windows, Mac
    > OS, Linux ...) is used by this user.
    >
    > So my question is basically : is there any way to configure the dialup
    > server for telling the dialing machine that he is NOT an ISP and that only a
    > very small segment of the global network will be handled by the dialup
    > server ?


    No. The server side does not control the client's routing table. The
    client does that. (In fact, PPP is peer-to-peer, so there is no
    "client" or "server.")

    But the client system _may_ opt to use suitable protocols over the PPP
    link to set up the local routing (forwarding) tables as needed, and
    those protocols can in fact gather the necessary information from the
    other end of each link. One way to do this is to run DHCP over the
    link. Another way is to run a routing protocol (such as RIP-2) to
    receive the appropriate routes. Both of those mechanisms work on
    links other than PPP -- this is another intentional design decision in
    these protocols; they're intentionally layered so that the same
    feature doesn't have to be redesigned each time a new link layer is
    developed.

    Again, if the client system isn't behaving as you want, then you need
    to complain to that software vendor. What you're talking about isn't
    really related to PPP at all.

    --
    James Carlson, KISS Network
    Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
    MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677

  3. Re: PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem)

    In article <4405a8ee$0$5160$626a54ce@news.free.fr>,
    Gingko wrote:
    >Hello,
    >
    >I am working on a PPP stack designed to be running on an embedded device in
    >order to give access to a tiny HTTP administration server.
    >
    >I works now quite well, but as PPP is normally designed to access Internet
    >from a client machine, it appears that all TCP/IP request are automatically
    >routed through the dialup server once connected, because the client machine
    >normally set up its default route via this server's address.
    >
    >That means that, because of this default route setting, the client machine
    >no longer have access to Internet if it was previously able to use Internet
    >by a different method, until the PPP connection is closed. It can only
    >access the dialed device, "thinking" that this device is an Internet Service
    >Provider...


    As James has pointed out, this really has nothing to do with the PPP protocol,
    but has everything to do with the specific implementation of PPP for your
    system. Based on your description, I'm guessing you're using some variant
    of *nix and pppd? If so, you very likely want to specify the 'nodefaultroute'
    option, either when you invoke pppd or in a standard options file (like
    /etc/ppp/options on many systems)? If you're not using this flavor of pppd,
    then simply look for a way to turn off the defaultroute option in whatever
    PPP stack you're using - shouldn't be that hard to find.

    Good luck!

    Patrick
    ========= For LAN/WAN Protocol Analysis, check out PacketView Pro! =========
    Patrick Klos Email: patrick@klos.com
    Klos Technologies, Inc. Web: http://www.klos.com/
    ==================== http://www.loving-long-island.com/ ====================

  4. Re: PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem)

    "James Carlson" a écrit dans le message de news:
    xoavirqyw8qq.fsf@sun.com...
    > "Gingko" writes:


    > By default, PPP with IPCP provides just a point-to-point IP link. It
    > does *NOT* provide access to the Internet or any other such thing.
    > That's a matter of IP routing configuration.
    >
    > Some PPP implementations have a feature that allows them to change
    > routing configuration. This has nothing to do with PPP itself; it's a
    > convenience feature. If yours does that and isn't configurable as you
    > need, then complain to the vendor of that software, or get a better
    > implementation.
    >
    >> I am wondering if there is any way to have it differently configured, by
    >> asking the dialing computer to not set the default route, and instead
    >> having
    >> it to just set a host or a network route to the device's IP or to the
    >> device
    >> network, so the client machine would be able to access simultaneously the
    >> embedded server machine and any Internet access that it had before
    >> establishing the connection.

    >
    > Sure. You'll need to mention what platform you're using and what
    > software.



    Very simple.
    The dialed server is made by myself (actually derived from Zilog's ZTP), and
    the dialing clients should be any Internet enabled computer, but very likely
    a vast majority of Windows XP, 2000, NT or 98 systems.

    Even if it is not part of the PPP specifications, it looks like that almost
    all common implementations use to build a default route to the dialed peer
    after establishing the connection, and this is certainly necessary for this
    very common use of PPP : creating an Internet connection through a telephone
    line. I understand that this is not part of PPP, but it is certainly very
    commonly associated to it.

    I just expect having my users to use their common (if not standard)
    installations for accessing my devices like if they have to connect to
    Internet through (in most of the cases) a telephone line. These users will
    be using the computer that they already own, and will not buy another one
    (and should not have to install some particular extension) just for making
    these specific connections. I expect them to use the resources they already
    have.


    >> So my question is basically : is there any way to configure the dialup
    >> server for telling the dialing machine that he is NOT an ISP and that
    >> only a
    >> very small segment of the global network will be handled by the dialup
    >> server ?

    >
    > No. The server side does not control the client's routing table. The
    > client does that. (In fact, PPP is peer-to-peer, so there is no
    > "client" or "server.")



    Ok ... But when establishing a PPP connection, there is at least one end
    initiating the connection and the other receiving the request.
    Thus I call them (maybe improperly) "client" for the first one, and "server"
    for the second one.


    > But the client system _may_ opt to use suitable protocols over the PPP
    > link to set up the local routing (forwarding) tables as needed, and
    > those protocols can in fact gather the necessary information from the
    > other end of each link. One way to do this is to run DHCP over the
    > link. Another way is to run a routing protocol (such as RIP-2) to
    > receive the appropriate routes. Both of those mechanisms work on
    > links other than PPP -- this is another intentional design decision in
    > these protocols; they're intentionally layered so that the same
    > feature doesn't have to be redesigned each time a new link layer is
    > developed.



    Ok ... Is it possible to do this on a basic Windows XP machine with no
    specific extensions ?


    > Again, if the client system isn't behaving as you want, then you need
    > to complain to that software vendor. What you're talking about isn't
    > really related to PPP at all.



    Do you really think that I could complain to Microsoft for having them
    changing all of their already sold Windows PPP implementations in order to
    met my very tiny needs ? :-) :-) :-)

    By the way, the IPCP extensions (see RFC 1877) seem to have mostly been
    added in order to allow the settings for the DNS servers needed on the
    established links. I am wondering if this really had to be included in the
    PPP specifications if PPP was only intended to establish a simple TCP/IP
    link ....

    Thank you anyway for having answered my message.

    Gingko



  5. Re: PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem)

    "Patrick Klos" a écrit dans le message de news:
    du4dgo$21k2$1@pyrite.mv.net...
    > In article <4405a8ee$0$5160$626a54ce@news.free.fr>,


    > Based on your description, I'm guessing you're using some variant
    > of *nix and pppd?


    No, it will be very much more likely some variant of Microsoft Remote
    Network Access ...., or maybe sometimes the Apple Mac OS equivalent (I
    forgot its name).

    I would be very happy to have my users using some Unix/Linux variant, but
    I'm afraid that this case is not enough common yet to allow me to seriously
    think about it.
    I have to live with the existing mass of Windows users ....

    > so, you very likely want to specify the 'nodefaultroute'
    > option, either when you invoke pppd or in a standard options file (like
    > /etc/ppp/options on many systems)? If you're not using this flavor of
    > pppd,
    > then simply look for a way to turn off the defaultroute option in whatever
    > PPP stack you're using - shouldn't be that hard to find.


    How can I setup the "'nodefaultroute" option on a Windows based machine ?

    Thanks ...

    Gingko



  6. Re: PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem)

    "Gingko" writes:
    > > Sure. You'll need to mention what platform you're using and what
    > > software.

    >
    >
    > Very simple.
    > The dialed server is made by myself (actually derived from Zilog's ZTP), and
    > the dialing clients should be any Internet enabled computer, but very likely
    > a vast majority of Windows XP, 2000, NT or 98 systems.


    In that case, the vendor you want to contact is Microsoft.

    > Even if it is not part of the PPP specifications, it looks like that almost
    > all common implementations use to build a default route to the dialed peer
    > after establishing the connection, and this is certainly necessary for this
    > very common use of PPP : creating an Internet connection through a telephone
    > line. I understand that this is not part of PPP, but it is certainly very
    > commonly associated to it.


    Indeed; I believe Windows does that by default. You'll probably need
    to read through Microsoft's documentation to figure out how to change
    its behavior.

    > I just expect having my users to use their common (if not standard)
    > installations for accessing my devices like if they have to connect to
    > Internet through (in most of the cases) a telephone line. These users will
    > be using the computer that they already own, and will not buy another one
    > (and should not have to install some particular extension) just for making
    > these specific connections. I expect them to use the resources they already
    > have.


    It seems like a reasonable expectation to me. It'd certainly be easy
    to do on a UNIX-based system. I don't know whether those particular
    clients you've decided to support can live up that expectation,
    though. It's something you'll have to work out with them.

    Or try a newsgroup that's dedicated to Windows-related issues. That's
    where the problem is; it has nothing to do with PPP.

    > > No. The server side does not control the client's routing table. The
    > > client does that. (In fact, PPP is peer-to-peer, so there is no
    > > "client" or "server.")

    >
    >
    > Ok ... But when establishing a PPP connection, there is at least one end
    > initiating the connection and the other receiving the request.
    > Thus I call them (maybe improperly) "client" for the first one, and "server"
    > for the second one.


    Not necessarily. PPP is also used on nailed-up leased lines, where
    neither end does any "initiating."

    I agree that it's fairly common to refer to the two endpoints the way
    you are, but it's also technically incorrect, and it's important to
    understand that PPP in fact establishes a connection between two
    peers, not between a "client" and "server."

    > Ok ... Is it possible to do this on a basic Windows XP machine with no
    > specific extensions ?


    No idea. You'll probably want to consult the Windows documentation
    and/or newsgroups related to Windows.

    > > Again, if the client system isn't behaving as you want, then you need
    > > to complain to that software vendor. What you're talking about isn't
    > > really related to PPP at all.

    >
    >
    > Do you really think that I could complain to Microsoft for having them
    > changing all of their already sold Windows PPP implementations in order to
    > met my very tiny needs ? :-) :-) :-)


    Yes. Or, rather, it's one of only a few rational choices I can
    imagine. The others include telling those uses to get better, more
    capable operating systems.

    At least to me, I think there's little reason to waste a great deal of
    time trying to support something that isn't designed to do what you
    need to do. It's like using a crescent wrench to drive in a nail.
    Sure, you can probably manage to do it, but it'll be harder and you'll
    probably also make a mess of things in the process.

    > By the way, the IPCP extensions (see RFC 1877) seem to have mostly been
    > added in order to allow the settings for the DNS servers needed on the
    > established links. I am wondering if this really had to be included in the
    > PPP specifications if PPP was only intended to establish a simple TCP/IP
    > link ....


    Read RFC 1877 carefully. It's a Microsoft hack. It's listed as
    "Informational" (not standards-track) because it was not a product of
    the standards process.

    In fact, it's a mistake. Both DHCP and BOOTP do everything that it
    does, and more, and do it better, and work fine on PPP, and in fact
    were in common use on both SLIP and PPP links before Microsoft ever
    started working on that "extension." There's no good reason for it.

    The fact that there's no v6 counterpart nor extension for other
    application layer details is due in no small part to the realization
    that 1877 was a mistake.

    --
    James Carlson, KISS Network
    Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
    MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677

  7. Re: PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem)

    In article news:xoavek1mw5cj.fsf@sun.com, James Carlson wrote:
    > "Gingko" writes:

    [...]
    >> Even if it is not part of the PPP specifications, it looks like that
    >> almost all common implementations use to build a default route to
    >> the dialed peer after establishing the connection, and this is
    >> certainly necessary for this very common use of PPP : creating an
    >> Internet connection through a telephone line. I understand that this
    >> is not part of PPP, but it is certainly very commonly associated to
    >> it.
    >>

    > Indeed; I believe Windows does that by default. You'll probably need
    > to read through Microsoft's documentation to figure out how to change
    > its behavior.
    >

    On the connection's properties you'll find a checkbox called "Use
    default gateway on remote network", see a picture here for instance,
    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/com...uy/cg1003.mspx

    [...]
    -
    Alan J. McFarlane
    http://www.alanjmcf.me.uk/
    Please follow-up in the newsgroup for the benefit of all.

  8. Re: PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem)

    "Alan J. McFarlane" a écrit dans le message de
    news: 4406c606$0$6954$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...

    > On the connection's properties you'll find a checkbox called "Use default
    > gateway on remote network", see a picture here for instance,
    > http://www.microsoft.com/technet/com...uy/cg1003.mspx


    Ok .... This is possibly a solution, at least for people using Windows XP
    Pro (I don't know about Windows XP home edition).
    I still have to check if this can be configured on per connection basis (and
    not globally on all PPP+TCP/IP connections), and to find a way to set up a
    route to the connection host or subnetwork (for the only or few IP addresses
    it uses) instead of this default route.

    I have to wait for next monday for checking that.

    Thank you very much.

    Gingko



  9. Re: PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem)

    "Gingko" writes:

    >Hello,


    >I am working on a PPP stack designed to be running on an embedded device in
    >order to give access to a tiny HTTP administration server.


    So why are you trying to reinvent the wheel? There is a very good ppp
    implimentation, called pppd, which you can use as teh basis of your ppp.


    >I works now quite well, but as PPP is normally designed to access Internet
    >from a client machine, it appears that all TCP/IP request are automatically
    >routed through the dialup server once connected, because the client machine
    >normally set up its default route via this server's address.


    Well, it is up to you to set up the default route as you want it. If you
    want the default to go through the ppp link set it up that way. If not set
    it up differently. ppp is a point to point link. It has nothing to do with
    routes or default or anything. That is up to you to set up.


    >That means that, because of this default route setting, the client machine
    >no longer have access to Internet if it was previously able to use Internet
    >by a different method, until the PPP connection is closed. It can only
    >access the dialed device, "thinking" that this device is an Internet Service
    >Provider...


    >I am wondering if there is any way to have it differently configured, by
    >asking the dialing computer to not set the default route, and instead having
    >it to just set a host or a network route to the device's IP or to the device
    >network, so the client machine would be able to access simultaneously the
    >embedded server machine and any Internet access that it had before
    >establishing the connection.


    Of course. Again there is NOTHING about ppp that says anything about a
    default route.

    >I read the RFC 1332 and RFC 1877 about IPCP negociation, but there doesn't
    >seem to be any configuration item inside them allowing the server to tell
    >the client how to configure its network routing.


    Right. it has nothing to do with routing. YOu route as you wish.


    >Of course, I know how to manually set up this routing after the connection
    >is established, but I expect it to be used by people with little or no
    >networking knowledge, so it would be great if I could set up this
    >transparently without asking the user to make non standard PPP
    >configurations, and having this working whatever kind of OS (Windows, Mac
    >OS, Linux ...) is used by this user.


    Why did you have your program set up a default route? That is NOT an aspect
    of ppp.
    Now some implimentations of ppp, like pppd, will set up the ppp link as a
    default route IF no other default route exists and IF the option
    nodefaultroute is not set.

    But that is controlled by you.



    >So my question is basically : is there any way to configure the dialup
    >server for telling the dialing machine that he is NOT an ISP and that only a
    >very small segment of the global network will be handled by the dialup
    >server ?


    routing is not something ppp handles. Set up your routing tables as you
    want them.


    >Maybe somebody have already met this kind of problem ?





  10. Re: PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem)

    "Gingko" writes:

    >"James Carlson" a écrit dans le message de news:
    >xoavirqyw8qq.fsf@sun.com...
    >> "Gingko" writes:


    >> By default, PPP with IPCP provides just a point-to-point IP link. It
    >> does *NOT* provide access to the Internet or any other such thing.
    >> That's a matter of IP routing configuration.
    >>
    >> Some PPP implementations have a feature that allows them to change
    >> routing configuration. This has nothing to do with PPP itself; it's a
    >> convenience feature. If yours does that and isn't configurable as you
    >> need, then complain to the vendor of that software, or get a better
    >> implementation.
    >>
    >>> I am wondering if there is any way to have it differently configured, by
    >>> asking the dialing computer to not set the default route, and instead
    >>> having
    >>> it to just set a host or a network route to the device's IP or to the
    >>> device
    >>> network, so the client machine would be able to access simultaneously the
    >>> embedded server machine and any Internet access that it had before
    >>> establishing the connection.

    >>
    >> Sure. You'll need to mention what platform you're using and what
    >> software.



    >Very simple.
    >The dialed server is made by myself (actually derived from Zilog's ZTP), and
    >the dialing clients should be any Internet enabled computer, but very likely
    >a vast majority of Windows XP, 2000, NT or 98 systems.


    >Even if it is not part of the PPP specifications, it looks like that almost
    >all common implementations use to build a default route to the dialed peer
    >after establishing the connection, and this is certainly necessary for this
    >very common use of PPP : creating an Internet connection through a telephone
    >line. I understand that this is not part of PPP, but it is certainly very
    >commonly associated to it.


    >I just expect having my users to use their common (if not standard)
    >installations for accessing my devices like if they have to connect to
    >Internet through (in most of the cases) a telephone line. These users will
    >be using the computer that they already own, and will not buy another one
    >(and should not have to install some particular extension) just for making
    >these specific connections. I expect them to use the resources they already
    >have.


    There is nothing that you can do about how their software behaves. If their
    software does the wrong thing, then they have to change their software.
    This is like asking how to change the defaults on your clients machines of
    the way they format their word documents. No you cannot except by asking
    them to do something different.



    >>> So my question is basically : is there any way to configure the dialup
    >>> server for telling the dialing machine that he is NOT an ISP and that
    >>> only a
    >>> very small segment of the global network will be handled by the dialup
    >>> server ?

    >>
    >> No. The server side does not control the client's routing table. The
    >> client does that. (In fact, PPP is peer-to-peer, so there is no
    >> "client" or "server.")



    >Ok ... But when establishing a PPP connection, there is at least one end
    >initiating the connection and the other receiving the request.
    >Thus I call them (maybe improperly) "client" for the first one, and "server"
    >for the second one.


    Fine. And your side cannot do anything about the decisions the other side
    makes. You cannot force a default route on the other side. Tell them to use
    better software is all you can do.




    >> But the client system _may_ opt to use suitable protocols over the PPP
    >> link to set up the local routing (forwarding) tables as needed, and
    >> those protocols can in fact gather the necessary information from the
    >> other end of each link. One way to do this is to run DHCP over the
    >> link. Another way is to run a routing protocol (such as RIP-2) to
    >> receive the appropriate routes. Both of those mechanisms work on
    >> links other than PPP -- this is another intentional design decision in
    >> these protocols; they're intentionally layered so that the same
    >> feature doesn't have to be redesigned each time a new link layer is
    >> developed.



    >Ok ... Is it possible to do this on a basic Windows XP machine with no
    >specific extensions ?


    To do what?



    >> Again, if the client system isn't behaving as you want, then you need
    >> to complain to that software vendor. What you're talking about isn't
    >> really related to PPP at all.



    >Do you really think that I could complain to Microsoft for having them
    >changing all of their already sold Windows PPP implementations in order to
    >met my very tiny needs ? :-) :-) :-)


    >By the way, the IPCP extensions (see RFC 1877) seem to have mostly been
    >added in order to allow the settings for the DNS servers needed on the
    >established links. I am wondering if this really had to be included in the
    >PPP specifications if PPP was only intended to establish a simple TCP/IP
    >link ....


    No it did not. Microsoft installed that extention and forced it on the
    community as I understand it. And many implimentations of ppp now support
    it. But it does not belong in ppp.

    >Thank you anyway for having answered my message.


    >Gingko




  11. Re: PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem)

    "Gingko" writes:

    >"Patrick Klos" a écrit dans le message de news:
    >du4dgo$21k2$1@pyrite.mv.net...
    >> In article <4405a8ee$0$5160$626a54ce@news.free.fr>,


    >> Based on your description, I'm guessing you're using some variant
    >> of *nix and pppd?


    >No, it will be very much more likely some variant of Microsoft Remote
    >Network Access ...., or maybe sometimes the Apple Mac OS equivalent (I
    >forgot its name).


    >I would be very happy to have my users using some Unix/Linux variant, but
    >I'm afraid that this case is not enough common yet to allow me to seriously
    >think about it.
    >I have to live with the existing mass of Windows users ....


    >> so, you very likely want to specify the 'nodefaultroute'
    >> option, either when you invoke pppd or in a standard options file (like
    >> /etc/ppp/options on many systems)? If you're not using this flavor of
    >> pppd,
    >> then simply look for a way to turn off the defaultroute option in whatever
    >> PPP stack you're using - shouldn't be that hard to find.


    >How can I setup the "'nodefaultroute" option on a Windows based machine ?


    You cannot do anything. It is the user who has the windows machine that has
    to do something. Unfortunately I do not do windows so do not know if there
    is some button you can press on the Windows ppp which tells it not to set a
    default route across the ppp link. There probably is, since the dual use of
    dialup and ethernet is common enough that even Microsoft would have heard
    of it.



    >Thanks ...


    >Gingko




  12. Re: PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem)

    "Unruh" a écrit dans le message de news:
    duaeti$jik$1@nntp.itservices.ubc.ca...
    > "Gingko" writes:
    >
    >>I am working on a PPP stack designed to be running on an embedded device
    >>in
    >>order to give access to a tiny HTTP administration server.

    >
    > So why are you trying to reinvent the wheel? There is a very good ppp
    > implimentation, called pppd, which you can use as teh basis of your ppp.


    Because I have to develop it on a platform on which pppd has never been
    ported.

    This platform has no hard disk, and not even a filesystem, everything have
    to be written in flash memory, which is located on a PC board that have a
    size of 19cm x 9,5cm, and must fit in a box of 3cm in depth.

    Fortunately somebody have already written a PPP stack for the processor
    used, I actually just have to customize it.

    Gingko



  13. Re: PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem)

    "Gingko" writes:
    > Because I have to develop it on a platform on which pppd has never been
    > ported.
    >
    > This platform has no hard disk, and not even a filesystem, everything have
    > to be written in flash memory, which is located on a PC board that have a
    > size of 19cm x 9,5cm, and must fit in a box of 3cm in depth.


    It's been done many times before on systems even smaller than that.
    It just takes a bit of effort.

    > Fortunately somebody have already written a PPP stack for the processor
    > used, I actually just have to customize it.


    Good luck. I wouldn't recommend doing that, as it's often easier (and
    less time-consuming) to start with working code and trim it down to
    what's needed than it is to debug some non-working code.

    --
    James Carlson, KISS Network
    Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084
    MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677

  14. Re: PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem)

    In article news:4408302b$0$25826$626a54ce@news.free.fr, Gingko wrote:
    > "Alan J. McFarlane" a écrit dans le
    > message de news:
    > 4406c606$0$6954$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
    >> On the connection's properties you'll find a checkbox called "Use
    >> default gateway on remote network", see a picture here for instance,
    >> http://www.microsoft.com/technet/com...uy/cg1003.mspx

    >
    > Ok .... This is possibly a solution, at least for people using
    > Windows XP Pro (I don't know about Windows XP home edition).
    > I still have to check if this can be configured on per connection
    > basis (and not globally on all PPP+TCP/IP connections), and to find a
    > way to set up a route to the connection host or subnetwork (for the
    > only or few IP addresses it uses) instead of this default route.
    >

    Such functionality exists in all versions of Windows that I remember,
    certainly back in NT4, though named slightly differently as I remember,
    and it does exist in XP Home.

    It /is/ a per-connection property. ((I wrote, "On the connection's
    properties..."))

    And finally, in the no default route case, a classful route is
    apparently added, see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/254231, and in the
    Cable Guy article too, "a route that corresponds to the Internet address
    class-based network ID of the assigned IP address is created" (the
    sentence after the screenshot). If you wish other routes to be added
    then you can set them up by DHCP, the RAS client in Windows sends a DHCP
    Inform down the link at connect time and will recognize the Classless
    Static Routes DHCP option, see again the Cable Guy article (it's about
    VPNs but the same software is used).


    > I have to wait for next monday for checking that.
    >

    Hoping your experiments will confirm this. :-)
    --
    Alan J. McFarlane
    http://www.alanjmcf.me.uk/
    Please follow-up in the newsgroup for the benefit of all.


  15. Re: PPP for accessing an embedded device (routing problem)

    "Alan J. McFarlane" a écrit dans le message de
    news: 440c2e80$0$6993$ed2619ec@ptn-nntp-reader02.plus.net...
    > In article news:4408302b$0$25826$626a54ce@news.free.fr, Gingko wrote:
    >> "Alan J. McFarlane" a écrit dans le
    >> message de news:


    >> Ok .... This is possibly a solution, at least for people using
    >> Windows XP Pro (I don't know about Windows XP home edition).
    >> I still have to check if this can be configured on per connection
    >> basis (and not globally on all PPP+TCP/IP connections), and to find a
    >> way to set up a route to the connection host or subnetwork (for the
    >> only or few IP addresses it uses) instead of this default route.
    >>

    > Such functionality exists in all versions of Windows that I remember,
    > certainly back in NT4, though named slightly differently as I remember,
    > and it does exist in XP Home.
    >
    > It /is/ a per-connection property. ((I wrote, "On the connection's
    > properties..."))
    >
    > And finally, in the no default route case, a classful route is apparently
    > added, see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/254231, [...].
    >
    >
    >> I have to wait for next monday for checking that.
    >>

    > Hoping your experiments will confirm this. :-)


    They did.
    .... at least in WinXP and Win98 (I don't have others).

    Thank you very much. :-)

    Gingko



+ Reply to Thread