Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 14:29:22 -0500 (EST) From: "matthew c. mead" <mmead@Glock.COM> To: wollman@lcs.mit.edu (Garrett A. Wollman) Cc: questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: proxy ARP on ethernet?? Message-ID: <199602151929.OAA20654@Glock.COM> In-Reply-To: <9602151916.AA12826@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> from "Garrett A. Wollman" at Feb 15, 96 02:16:41 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garrett A. Wollman wrote: > >> No you should not be able to do so. It might be possible, but only > >> because of insufficient error checking in the kernel. > > > Proxy arping with packet forwarding having two interfaces on the same > > subnet is not supposed to be a valid option? I've know a lot of people to do > > this when the provider has hubs that only allow one mac address per port... > IP addresses name interfaces, not hosts. It is not valid to assign I know what IP addresses name :-) > the same IP address to two interfaces. (We actually sort-of support a > configuration called a ``half-router'' where this is not true, but > only one of the interfaces can be multiple-access; the others have to > be point-to-point. I would just as soon not support this either, but > enough people use it to make desupporting in politically impossible.) What I'm talking about is an alternative that will allow him to do what he wants - having two separate ip addresses for on his "pseudo-router" machine, both on the same subnet... This would allow forwarding between the two interfaces, and proxy arping so that the hosts on the internal wire could get to the rest of the net as well. -matt -- Matthew C. Mead mmead@Glock.COM http://www.Glock.COM/~mmead/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602151929.OAA20654>