From owner-freebsd-net Mon Nov 9 01:37:22 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id BAA05595 for freebsd-net-outgoing; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 01:37:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from mail.calweb.com (mail.calweb.com [208.131.56.12]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id BAA05590 for ; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 01:37:21 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jkf@calweb.com) Received: by mail.calweb.com (8.8.6/8.8.6) with SMTP id BAA00967; Mon, 9 Nov 1998 01:35:49 -0800 (PST) X-SMTP: helo web2.calweb.com from jkf@calweb.com server jkf@web2.calweb.com ip 208.131.56.52 Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 01:35:48 -0800 (PST) From: "Jason K. Fritcher" To: Luigi Rizzo cc: Wes Peters , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: router/bridge question In-Reply-To: <199811090700.IAA27388@labinfo.iet.unipi.it> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Mon, 9 Nov 1998, Luigi Rizzo wrote: > > Buy an inexpensive 4- or 8-port ethernet switch, and put your FreeBSD > > router on a switch port, with each of your two new "subnets" uplinked > > into other switch ports. You won't have to partition your addresses > > or any other silly admin headaches. > > while i agree that given the budget one can use a switch, i want to > point out that: > + the additional cost for the original solution is just one more > ethernet card; > + even by dedicating a full machine to the task, > a real switch (not a hub) might probably cost as much as a > leftover pentium machine with 2-3 ethernet boards; > + most "inexpensive" switches come with UTP connectors, sothe original > poster might have to put in additional UTP<->BNC adapters. Exactly. We already have a machine dedicated to being a gateway, and adding another NIC, and patching a kernel is a lot more financially efficient than dedicating a switch to a network of only ~25 machines. > and finally: > > + bridging in FreeBSD is real bridging -- you don't have to partition > addresses or admin/configure anything for the bridging part. > > not to mention that you can make use of firewall and dummynet at the > bridging level. Hmmm... What would the difference be of using ipfw at this level vs at the IP level? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Jason K. Fritcher System Administrator jkf@calweb.com CalWeb Internet Services http://www.calweb.com/ 916-641-9320 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message