Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Assigning an IP in AP mode
>> > 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
[gentoo-user] Re: Assigning an IP in AP mode
Adam Carter gmail.com> writes: > > 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
