[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "R. Benjamin Shapiro" <ben at getdown dot org>
 To:  Will Dyson <will dot dyson at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  Jeb Campbell <jebc at c4solutions dot net>, m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Help making trivial changes to a m0n0 image
 Date:  Tue, 25 Jan 2005 11:03:10 -0800
Why not just make the standard pptp subnet larger and make the number of 
allowed pptp sessions configurable in the interface?

Ben

Will Dyson wrote:

>On Tue, 25 Jan 2005 09:58:57 -0600, R. Benjamin Shapiro <ben at getdown dot org> wrote:
>  
>
>>I'm running on a PC with a CompactFlash card.
>>
>>Thanks so much,
>>Ben
>>
>>Jeb Campbell wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>R. Benjamin Shapiro wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>HI Folks,
>>>>
>>>>I wrote a week or two ago asking for help upping the number of
>>>>simultaneous PPTP users from 16. While the changes to the m0no image
>>>>are trivial to make, they require a FreeBSD box, which I do not have.
>>>>
>>>>Would someone be interested in helping me by building an image that
>>>>has the limit raised to 50ish? I have Linux boxes galore, but my
>>>>understanding is that this requires FreeBSD to do.
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Just doing this myself for Bellsouth static ip's.
>>>
>>>Please tell me what arch (generic, 45xx, 48xx, wrap), version (1.11 I
>>>assume), and what files to change and where.
>>>      
>>>
>
>As I'm sure that this is the most common thing that people build new
>images for, it might make sense to offer images built with different
>limits (at least for the generic pc platform) from the download page.
>
>As long as it is made clear that the higher limit will cause more
>memory to be consumed, it could be very useful to people who know they
>will need that many PPTP connections.
>
>When I was setting up a m0n0 router for an important client, the
>static PPTP limit was the biggest concern they (and my coworkers) had.
>They were satisfied that we could build our own image with an
>increased limit if we had to, but how many people don't bother looking
>that deep?
>
>  
>