Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 24 Apr 1995 09:14:36 +0200 (MET DST)
From:      J Wunsch <j@jette.heep.sax.de>
To:        hackers@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: Re(2): IP problem with 950412-SNAP (and earlier -SNAPs)
Message-ID:  <199504240714.JAA03585@jette.heep.sax.de>
In-Reply-To: <199504240354.WAA20416@bonkers.taronga.com> from "Peter da Silva" at Apr 23, 95 10:54:57 pm

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[2 p-p-p interface with identical addresses]

> >   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.
> 
Use the remote address as routing distinction.  e.g.:

	192.168.1.1  <---- SLIP ---->  111.222.333.444 gate to world

	192.168.1.1  <-------------->  192.168.1.* local ether

route add default 111.222.333.444

will do the trick: all packets to 192.168.1.* will pass thru the ether
interface, packets for the wide world will be sent out of the SLIP i/f.
The host route to 111.222.333.444 is implicit in BSD as soon as the
interface is up (it is _not_ implicit in Linux, as i had to find now :).
You only have to deal with network routes yourself.

Jörg



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504240714.JAA03585>