I mentioned some of the thread re: 1.1.1.1 on portmaster-users because there seemed to be an implication that Livingston's Portmaster had a problem in its PPP implementation. Now I get a question that I don't know enough to answer. Perhaps one of you could help this fellow.... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 17 Apr 95 21:37:38 CDT From: Kevin Sears x3-5160 <searsk@iscmed.med.ge.com> To: portmaster-users@msen.com Subject: SNMP vs 1.1.1.1 Greetings, What does SNMP and IP address 1.1.1.1 have in common(seen a few postings on this topic tonight wrt Ascend ISDN routers and Netmanage's Chameleon)? I had a Sniffer on my 3.x.x.x subnet looking for a Portmaster problem when I noticed that I was getting SNMP get next requests from a device in another part of GE directed to my Portmaster on subnet 3.x.x.x with an address of 1.1.1.1. My portmaster's ethernet address was in that packet(i.e. 1.1.1.1) so I'm surprised. What gives? ============================== Kevin Sears Systems & Network Support Tech OnLine Center GE Medical Systems PO Box 414, m/s-W595 Milwaukee, WI 53201 Internet: searsk@med.ge.com Voice: 414-524-5160 FAX: 414-524-5305
just to cut that 1.1.1.1: packets like trumpet etc. make 1.1.1.1 the default before negotiation. If a dial up user gets on a PPP port where his address is not negotiated, but accepted, the (trumpet, winsocks etc) default wil lkick in. That's where 1.1.1. comes from: a dial in port is improperly configured to accept the offered dial-up customer address, instead of negotiating it. Most comservers I know have the flag 'negotiated' for PPP adress and should sit there. Next config error is then to accept incoming routes from PPP connections and to propagate them through the network, even over to other peers. This does not occur with the other frequent default of 0.0.0.0 since most braindamaged equipment 'thnks' subnet 0 is 'unusable'. 1.1.1.1 only shows up if something is not configured right on the provider side. Mike On Mon, 17 Apr 1995, Michael Dillon wrote:
I mentioned some of the thread re: 1.1.1.1 on portmaster-users because there seemed to be an implication that Livingston's Portmaster had a problem in its PPP implementation. Now I get a question that I don't know enough to answer. Perhaps one of you could help this fellow....
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 17 Apr 95 21:37:38 CDT From: Kevin Sears x3-5160 <searsk@iscmed.med.ge.com> To: portmaster-users@msen.com Subject: SNMP vs 1.1.1.1
Greetings,
What does SNMP and IP address 1.1.1.1 have in common(seen a few postings on this topic tonight wrt Ascend ISDN routers and Netmanage's Chameleon)?
I had a Sniffer on my 3.x.x.x subnet looking for a Portmaster problem when I noticed that I was getting SNMP get next requests from a device in another part of GE directed to my Portmaster on subnet 3.x.x.x with an address of 1.1.1.1. My portmaster's ethernet address was in that packet(i.e. 1.1.1.1) so I'm surprised.
What gives?
==============================
Kevin Sears Systems & Network Support Tech OnLine Center GE Medical Systems PO Box 414, m/s-W595 Milwaukee, WI 53201 Internet: searsk@med.ge.com Voice: 414-524-5160 FAX: 414-524-5305
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Michael F. Nittmann nittmann@wis.com Network Architect nittmann@b3.com B3 Corporation, Marshfield, WI (CIX Member) (715) 387 1700 xt. 158 US Cyber (SM), Washington DC (715) 573 2448 (715) 831 7922 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
participants (2)
-
Michael Dillon -
Michael F. Nittmann