Thanks For the help.... But looking at the following
OK here is the update:
Internet
I
OpenBSD 4.2 (1) 10.60.0.1--- wired LAN
I
wireless card - 10.60.128.1
I
I
I
wireless card ral0 - 10.60.128.2
I netmask 255.255.192.0
I broadcast 10.60.63.255
OpenBSD 4.2 (2)---- wired LAN em0 - 10.80.0.1
I netmask 255.255.0.0
I broadcast 10.80.255.255
wireless card ral1 - 10.70.0.1
netmask 255.255.0.0
broadcast 10.70.25.255
---------------------------------------------
I then added another wireless card to
OpenBSD 4.2 (1)
I
Wireless Card (2)as 10.60.192.1
netmask 255.255.192.0
broadcast 10.60.255.255
I
I
wireless card (2-1) 10.60.192.2
I
I
OpenBSD (3)
I
wired lan 10.90.0.1
netmask 255.255.0.0
broadcast 10.90.255.255
I
I
host 10.90.0.2
netmask 255.255.0.0
broadcast 10.90.255.255
So the question is.. will haveing the 10.90.0.0/16 subnet
cause conflicts with the 10.70.0.0/16 and 10.80.0.0/16 networks
on the OpenBSD (1) box's routing table.
Bret
Stuart Henderson wrote:
>On 2007/12/11 08:40, Bret wrote:
>
>
>>OK here is the update:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>ral0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
>> ieee80211: nwid tri-statebroadband.com_2 chan 3 bssid
>> inet 10.60.128.2 netmask 0xffffc000 broadcast 10.60.191.255
>>ral1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
>> ieee80211: nwid tri-statebroadband.com_2_1 chan 1 bssid
>> inet 10.60.129.1 netmask 0xffffc000 broadcast 10.60.191.255
>>em0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
>> media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX full-duplex,rxpause,txpause)
>> inet 10.60.130.1 netmask 0xffffc000 broadcast 10.60.191.255
>>
>>
>
>As I suspected, these are all in the same network.
>
>$ ipcalc 10.60.130.1/0xffffc000
>address : 10.60.130.1
>netmask : 255.255.192.0 (0xffffc000)
>network : 10.60.128.0 /18
>broadcast : 10.60.191.255
>host min : 10.60.128.1
>host max : 10.60.191.254
>hosts/net : 16382
>
>Your chosen netmask makes the first 18 bits of the IP address be
>the network address, so 10.60.128 [...] 10.60.191 are all in the
>same network. This part of the address should be different between
>interfaces.
