Hi Everyone,
Need you help.
I have a server that is on a remote LAN. To ping the server, the traffic
goes in the local router(gateway) e0, out e1, to a local Aironet wireless
bridge, to the remote Aironet wireless bridge, to a switch, to server.
Works great.
Currently, there is also a link
]
Subject: Directly connected ethernet interface [7:10998]
Hi Everyone,
Need you help.
I have a server that is on a remote LAN. To ping the server, the traffic
goes in the local router(gateway) e0, out e1, to a local Aironet wireless
bridge, to the remote Aironet wireless bridge, to a switch,
Sitting here at Starbucks, using wireless, waiting for the 4th of July
parade My brain isn't working too well. The latte wore off hours ago.
But it occurs to me that Aironet is bridging, as you know. The routed
network doesn't know when a bridged network goes down. Could you do this
ar
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Directly connected ethernet interface [7:10998]
>Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 09:12:25 -0700
>
>Sitting here at Starbucks, using wireless, waiting for the 4th of July
>parade My brain isn't working too well. The latte wore off hours ago.
>
>But it
less bridges is the way to go, I feel bridging is taking a step back.
>
>Thanks
>KM
>
>
>>From: Priscilla Oppenheimer
>>To: "KM Reynolds" ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: Directly connected ethernet interface [7:10998]
>>Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 09:1
ds" ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Directly connected ethernet interface [7:10998]
>Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 19:00:58 -0700
>
>Well, the parade is over, and now I'm _really_ tired, but, I got to
>wondering again. What problem are you trying to solve? Why doesn't the
>E
sense.
>
>KM
>
>
>>From: Priscilla Oppenheimer
>>To: "KM Reynolds" ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Subject: Re: Directly connected ethernet interface [7:10998]
>>Date: Wed, 04 Jul 2001 19:00:58 -0700
>>
>>Well, the parade is over, and now I'm _
ds" ,[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: Directly connected ethernet interface [7:10998]
>Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 09:15:37 -0700
>
>I think the secondary address could work as a workaround. It would be a way
>to logically place the server on its own network.
>
>I think that a
8 matches
Mail list logo
