From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon Aug  4 10:47:47 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34CF137B401
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon,  4 Aug 2003 10:47:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pursued-with.net (adsl-66-125-9-242.dsl.sndg02.pacbell.net
	[66.125.9.242])	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79EC143F75
	for <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>; Mon,  4 Aug 2003 10:47:46 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from Kevin_Stevens@pursued-with.net)
Received: from babelfish.pursued-with.net (babelfish.pursued-with.net
	[192.168.168.42])
	by pursued-with.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h74HnAqB038034;
	Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from Kevin_Stevens@pursued-with.net)
Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2003 10:49:10 -0700 (PDT)
From: Kevin Stevens <Kevin_Stevens@pursued-with.net>
To: kkonaka@mac.com
In-Reply-To: <la7k5te3kg.wl@mac.com>
Message-ID: <20030804104551.U37975@babelfish.pursued-with.net>
References: <la7k5te3kg.wl@mac.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: coexsiting two network (addresses) on a single ivp4 link
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Kevin_Stevens@pursued-with.net
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2003 17:47:47 -0000

On Mon, 4 Aug 2003 kkonaka@mac.com wrote:

> what kind of things go wrong if I'd put two ipv4 networks
> on a single ethernet link? eg., put 192.168.1/24 and 192.168.3/24
> on a single segment.

If you just mean on the same segment; nothing goes wrong.  If you mean on
the same interface on a FreeBSD box, you get a lot of ARP warning
messages.  Then when you post here as to how to turn the warning messages
off (there's a sysctl for it), you get a bunch of people grilling you as
to why you want to do that, even though it's a perfectly legitimate
design.  At least that was my experience.  ;)

KeS