Subject: re: Is there an IPCP extension negotiating Def Gateway Addr

From: [email-masked] (Vernon Schryver)
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 09:04:42 -0700

> From: "Dan Malone" <[email-masked]>

> Just a shot in the dark.. I have looked through all of the PPP related
> RFC's and RFC Drafts and have not been successful in finding anything
> relating to negotiation or just plain forwarding of a default gateway
> address.  Is there an obscure RFC/draft that addresses this.. has there
> been any discussion relating to this type of scenario ?? Any information
> positive or negative would be greatly appreciated.

That PPP has a bunch of negotiating machinery does not imply that
absolutely everything must be negotiated by PPP.  What is wrong with
the Internet Router Discovery Protocol or RIP?  For that matter, why
not simply use the IP address of the peer determined during the IPCP
negotiations?

That this and similar questions (e.g. concerning DNS servers) keep
coming up (and worse, getting mis-solved by various big outfits that do
not understand IP, PPP, DNS, and the rest) says that there should be a
PPP RFC that tells people what PPP is not.

Vernon Schryver,  [email-masked]

---

From: Philip Rakity <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 16:25:54 -0800 (PST)

Vernon,

There is no IP address of the peer if the link is unnumbered nor do most
ISPs respond to RIP

regards,

Philip Rakity

---

From: Andy Valencia <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:00:09 -0800 (PST)

>There is no IP address of the peer if the link is unnumbered nor do most

Yes, but since it's not like you need to ARP on a PPP link, so what?  You
know that your default route is out the PPP link, and that's all you *need*
to know.

						Andy Valencia

---

From: Philip Rakity <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 1997 17:13:30 -0800 (PST)

Andy,

You are absolutely right, but I was answering Vernon's point about RIP or
using the IPCP address passed by the ISP.

Philip