Thanks Jim. With 20/20 hindsight I think this problem should have been easier but...
-Alex ----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:22 PM Subject: Re: Dumb networking question... Alex (Hewitt Tech) wrote: > So the person who said there > might be a routing problem was correct. Simply setting the two LANs to > 192.168.1.* and 192.168.2.* respectively fixed the problem. I think that may have been me, but it was in a message that didn't go to the list. [I don't consider myself a networking expert, it often takes me lots of trial-and-error to solve these kinds of problems -- but if someone wanted me to solve their problems I'm available!] ---------------------- Forwarded Message: --------------------- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "Hewitt Tech" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Dumb networking question... Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 13:55:48 +0000 I may be misunderstanding, too, what you're trying to accomplish. What I saw that made me think there might be a problem was that, given the address assignments and subnet masks involved, there was no way for a host to determine, from the IP address alone, whether it must direct a packet to the gateway or send it directly on the LAN. This decision takes place at the routing level and once it's made, the lower level doesn't have the capability to change it -- and it's only the lower level (using ARP, etc) that knows which MAC addresses are local. It I were doing this, I'd set up distinct subnets for the two sides of the bridge/tunnel. _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
