--- Kevin Holmquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Nit, > > When you say subnet, are you referring to a > subnetted address block or > the subnet mask? > > Two subnets can have the same mask yet they are > different subnets, or > networks. > > Routing, by definition, is between networks. A > basic route table entry > looks like this: > > network address ->mask->interface to forward to > (please, no flames about > weighted routes, flags, metrics, etc : )) > > The two routes your suggesting would look like this > example: > > 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 if0 > 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 if1
I was suggesting routing between two different networks with the same mask. 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 if0 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 if1 > So where do packets for 192.168.0.247 go? The > router has two valid > routes and results would be unpredictable. > > If you're thinking about a route entry for a single > host: > > 192.168.0.0 255.255.255.0 if0 > 192.168.0.247 255.255.255.255 if1 I was suggesting the following: 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.255 eth0 192.168.1.2 255.255.255.255 eth1 192.168.1.3 255.255.255.255 eth1 default 192.168.1.4 eth0 where 192.168.1.4 is Verizon's gateway, 192.168.1.1,2 are NICs on my Linux box where 192.168.1.2 is connected to a hub on my internal network, and 192.168.1.3 is a laptop. When the gateway receives a packet for 192.168.1.2 or 192.168.1.3 eth0, it puts it on eth1 after looking at the routing table, so the above wouldnt require my gateway to run RIP since Im statically assigning the routes, and dont have a block of IPs to route traffic between, and because routing information wont change for me. I am aware that this is not how 'hosts' work, but a kernel configured to act as a 'gateway' or 'router' must do the above; else all that I have learnt in my graduate network course is false ;) > > This doesn't work because broadcast traffic (traffic > to 192.168.0.255) > would either never get to 192.168.0.247 or the > router would see two > valid routes. In my table above, the broadcast traffic will goto all hosts 192.168.1.1, 192.168.1.2, 192.168.1.3, except to the one generating the brodcast, but it will not be put on the eth0 wire, since that is against an RFC whose number I cant recall(this makes sense, since otherwise there would be a 'broadcast loop'). > Clear as mud yet? :) > > nit etc wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > > > I dont see why I would require two different > subnets. > > Gateways can definetly be configured to route > traffic > > between > > two networks with identical subnets. > > > > However, in my case, I do believe that things will > > work if both my NICs have an IP from Verizon, and > I > > could add static routes for them with the mask of > 32. > > The only problem is getting my other machines to > > obtain an IP via DHCP. > > > > <snip> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Redhat-list mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail! http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/ _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
