Hi,
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 05:53:04PM +0800, Reynald I. Ngo wrote:
> >If yes, there is nothing you can do about it. There are no netmasks on
> >point-to-point links, and the netmask is thus not negotiated at all (!).
> >It's a client side issue what "netmask" they pick.
>
> I see. do you think that's the cause why i can't access my rfc1918
> network?
To be sure of that, one would have to see the routing tables on the
client and NAS side, and a "traceroute" from the client side.
Usually the "netmask" on the client side shouldn't be relevant at all,
as it just means "a route is generated to the PPP link". It's important
(at least in the usual scenarios) that the default route also points to
the PPP link.
It might be necessary to set "ip classless" on the Cisco, if not already
done. Always do this.
gert
--
USENET is *not* the non-clickable part of WWW!
//www.muc.de/~gert/
Gert Doering - Munich, Germany gert@greenie.muc.de
fax: +49-89-35655025 gert.doering@physik.tu-muenchen.de
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Aug 04 2002 - 04:13:19 EDT