[lug] pump.conf config, AT&T

[D. Stimits]

Warren Sanders wrote:
> Well I'm not using pump but may have found my problem with 'man dhcpcd' 
> and the -H; possibly set by default in the binary.

So far it seems that AT&T did not activate something. I have had the 
same results on 3 machines, one with win 98, another win2k, and the 
third Redhat 7.3. All of them get a routable IP address, as well as what 
seems like a legitimate netmask. All of them, when using a browser, are 
able to look up named addresses and convert them to dotted-decimal 
format. None of them can ping or go to/past the gateway.

One thing I noticed that looks odd, and need to find out about (I will 
have to call AT&T tomorrow, but I have doubts that they can help on a 
Sunday...oops, that is today, I am up late), is the broadcast address. I 
think it might be doing some strange windows-ism. The basic address is 
12.x.x.x, netmas 255.255.255.0. Gateway is in the proper range for the 
netmask. However, I have seen a broadcast of 255.255.255.255 (can't 
remember where i saw that). I would think that it would be something 
else. As far as I can tell from prior phone calls and web site 
information, this should be ordinary DHCP over the ethernet, without any 
form of PPPoE. Perhaps the most irritating thing right now is that when 
adding both a win2k machine and a linux machine to see if the win2k can 
reach the linux one on the internal LAN (with cable modem removed and 
static IP's assigned to NICs), I cannot get the stupid win2k machine to 
allow me to use the internal LAN even though it is up and pings, so on. 
It makes dialing the modem line mandatory before it will allow the web 
browser to even attempt to browse over the LAN. No matter what I do, it 
will not acknowledge that a LAN with a proper netmask and static address 
can be used until the modem is dialed. I have a feeling that the only 
way it is going to work right is to physically remove the modem first 
and modem settings. The whole idea of netmask seems to be lost on win2k, 
being there more or less just for decoration.

D. Stimits, stimits at idcomm.com


> 
> D. Stimits wrote:
> 
>> The cable modem guy is outside working right now, I'm wondering if 
>> anyone has advice on pump.conf dhcp client setup for AT&T? I'm telling 
>> it basically what the sample script is, which is pretty much nothing 
>> but nodns to stop it from writing resolv.conf. If anyone has 
>> suggestions or comments for AT&T (I can do this before he finishes the 
>> actual cable), let me know.
>>
>> D. Stimits, stimits AT idcomm.com
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
>> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
>> Join us on IRC: lug.boulder.co.us port=6667 channel=#colug
>>
>