-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ok, let me recap ... you're doing all these gymnastics because you perceive it as _less_ trouble than 3 individual workstation firewalls? I think you're fibbing; this is really a research paper, isn't it? :-} - -d nit etc wrote: >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 > - -- David Talkington PGP key: http://www.prairienet.org/~dtalk/0xCA4C11AD.pgp - -- http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/pale_blue_dot.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 6.5.8 Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.75-6 iQA/AwUBPEYAhL9BpdPKTBGtEQJX2wCgj59A43HrwGdEyCHs8Rzypm51O0wAoOXn kT8U2Qpj3fSpKjY7qlyVsq8L =tXfd -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
