Re: NM using Option card

[Markus Becker <mab comnets uni-bremen de>]

On Fri, 8 Feb 2008, Dan Williams wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-02-08 at 17:03 +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 08, 2008 at 09:54:28AM -0500, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > We've been talking to the VMC developers, who have added a D-Bus
> > > interface to VMC.  You're right, it's pointless to have many projects
> > > duplicate the same quirks and workarounds for cards, and using some
> > > existing tool is the way to go.  Since VMC is adding the D-Bus
> > > interface, Tambet and I thought that using VMC like we currently use
> > > wpa_supplicant would be a good option.
> >
> > Did you ever look at VMC? IMHO it is much too heavyweight to be a backend
> > for a system daemon like NM. And it supported almost no hardware the last
> > time i looked (a few weeks ago).
>
> They were separating it into a backend and a front-end GUI client as far
> as I know.  Their GUI frontend would do stuff like SMS and address book
> manipulation and communicate with the backend via D-Bus, like NM would
> do.
>
> Dan

I looked at it as well today and they are just informing the user about 
the bad DNS IP address, but not doing anything.

> > > > The 10.64.64.64 default peer address is also no problem - the network just
> > > > does not return a peer address, so pppd uses this default. It does not matter,
> > > > as long as your default route points to the ppp interface, it just works.
> > > > At least for me, with a quite some hardware and providers that have tested.
> > >
> > > Not really; I needed a valid peer address for Sprint here in the US
> > > otherwise my packets would go nowhere.  Previously, the NM
> > > implementation would just assign the local address as the peer address,
> > > and that simply didn't work.  I can't imagine how assigning the random
> > > 10.64.64.6x address would work any better?
> >
> > If the peer does not supply a peer address it will basically go like
> >
> >     route add default dev ppp0
> >
> > As long as the other end takes all traffic and routes it, you don't
> > need a default gateway set up on your machine.
> >
> > root susi:~# ifconfig modemB
> > modemB    Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
> >           inet addr:10.129.77.52  P-t-P:10.64.64.64  Mask:255.255.255.255
> >           UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
> >           RX packets:4 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> >           TX packets:7 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> >           collisions:0 txqueuelen:3
> >           RX bytes:58 (58.0 b)  TX bytes:327 (327.0 b)
> >
> > root susi:~# route -n
> > Kernel IP routing table
> > Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface
> > 10.64.64.64     0.0.0.0         255.255.255.255 UH    0      0        0 modemB
> > 127.0.0.0       0.0.0.0         255.0.0.0       U     0      0        0 lo
> > 0.0.0.0         0.0.0.0         0.0.0.0         U     0      0        0 modemB
> >
> > and it works just fine. (Yes, ifconfig and route are lame and real men use ip
> > for that today... :-)
> >
> > This does not mean that this will work for all configurations, but for those
> > i encountered here in europe, it worked just fine.