>> > BTW, can I assign IP addresses on the same subnet to the 2 wireless >> > interfaces in my system if one of them connects to the WAN and the >> > other to the LAN? > > Yes and no. (see below). > >> You probably don't want to do that. It will give you two connected >> routes for the subnet, and only the one with the better metric will be >> used, so you wont be able to communicate with hosts on the other >> interface. You could probably setup bridging, but IMO it would almost >> certainly be better to just use different subnets. > > YES; Depending on how your "subnet" and what netmask(s) you use. Routinely > a given class C (for example) is broken down to more smaller > address spaces (subnets) and not the x.x.x.0-255 range of a > typical class C addressing scheme. > > Avoid asymmetrical routing: > https://my.stonesoft.com/support/document.do?docid=1377 > > You need to read up on this and understand things before getting > fancy on subnets. Router jocks do this all day, every day. Cisco > use to have some fabulous docs on the net, but I do not think > they are available any more without a support contract. > I.E. typically folks subnet on the class C boundary > (for example; 192.168.44.x) as it is cleaner and easier > to configure. But if you break down a Class C to smaller subnets, > actually they are different subnets, so the real answer is > NO, unless you want routing instability or want to use ugly hacks, > or handle by the port/service with something like netfilter/bridging/etc. > > There are tools on the net to help you figure out how to break down > a typical Class C network, to various smaller subnets. > > > hth, > James
Got it, thank you James. - Grant
