_An_ explanation for IP changes has certainly been given but there are a
couple of points I seem to either misunderstand or not follow.
The MAC address should be the physical address of the network device e.g a
network card. The modem DSL/ATM interface lacks a physical address. So it
would seem that the storing physical addresses to match to IPs is not
what happens.
As far as I can see the only unique identifier is the PPP PAP login and
password. It is this that seems to have got lost from any cache it might
have ben in.
Address assignment seems to me to be likely to be via PPP as that is part
of what PPP can do I thought.
On Locking of th modem - did my previous post with the log show up or should
I resend it. It seems that if the modem fails to clear its IP address when
it renegotiates for any reason then it may be unable to accept the IP given
by the RAN. This will indeed prevent IP connectivity which may very well be
described as "locked out "
For me it was not the crossover per se that suggested that the IP could
get stuck but observation of the log during a number of resets soft restarts
and powerdowns - all of which cause the IP to be renegotiated. Not always
to the same one - the reset ppp I just did gave me yet another IP address.
however it did get one this time which was not the case on the first
renegotiation subsequent to the change.
Stephen, if some one has physical access to the modem then power down and on
again should clear the old IP and allow it to renegotiate correctly.
--kit
On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 07:55:12AM +1200, Dan Langille wrote:
> Why do you claim your adsl has refused to give it up?
>
> Yet another bug? What are the other ones?
>
> As for understanding, the explanation for dynamic IPs has been given.
>
> As for the changeover on Monday morning, I assume they installed new
> third party software which lost the old MAC/IP address settings.
>
> On 1 Jun 99, at 7:28, Thing wrote:
>
> > This crossover suggests maybe my adsl is locked out if its retained
> > 210.55.152.75 and refuses to give it up maybe we have yet another bug. I
> > still dont understand why telecom are doing this, the system seems to
> > wrok without it.
> >
> > Thing
Received on Tue Jun 1 08:24:27 1999