Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 22:54:57 -0500 (CDT) From: Peter da Silva <peter@bonkers.taronga.com> To: tom@haven.uniserve.com (Tom Samplonius) Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Re(2): IP problem with 950412-SNAP (and earlier -SNAPs) Message-ID: <199504240354.WAA20416@bonkers.taronga.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.91.950423204437.4581A-100000@haven.uniserve.com> from "Tom Samplonius" at Apr 23, 95 08:50:45 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > or else the kernel restriction on routing to the local > > > interface address needs to be relaxed (but what if you have multiple > > > point-to-point links sharing the same address). > > How could you do that? Each interface needs to have a unique address. > No it doesn't. I've run a SLIP interface and an ethernet interface on > a FreeBSD machine both having the same address. I know that it is > opinion of some that this shouldn't work, but ..... Well, I think it kinda violates TCP/IP requirements, yes. I guess it's workable, but then you lose the ability to route to each address.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504240354.WAA20416>