From what I understand, with the current baselayout adsl interfaces can currently only be provided by net.eth?. This, I believe, is semantically wrong and also very limiting. It is wrong because the interface that is eventually brought up is a ppp# interface. I believe that the proper naming and configuration is to have a ppp# interface be configured by the adsl module, and also have that ppp# interface depend on the eth# interface that it is going to talk over. The dep is accomplishable even now by adding the following to conf.d/net: depend_ppp0() { need net.eth1 } However, besides semantics, there are real problems as well. - It is impossible to have two PPPoE connections over the same eth# interface. I do have such a setup at home. - It seems impossible (I could be wrong) to have a PPPoE connection over an interface that also has an IP address and is used for regular traffic. This was my setup until June this year where I used the same wire to connect to my neighbor's LAN and for PPPoE (we shared the modem, each of us using their own ISP).
Adding to the net-scripts tracker.
See Bug 53954 the fact that adsl is provided by a eth interface is unrelated to the other issues you mention so i dont see how that is the limiting factor
This sounds like a duplicate of bug #53954 - want me to mark it as so?
(In reply to comment #2) > See Bug 53954 > > the fact that adsl is provided by a eth interface is unrelated to the other > issues you mention so i dont see how that is the limiting factor (In reply to comment #3) > This sounds like a duplicate of bug #53954 - want me to mark it as so? You guys are right. Sorry for not replying earlier, #53954 is one long bug :) Marking as a DUP. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 53954 ***
