Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 22:35:52 +0300 From: Petri Helenius <pete@silver.sms.fi> To: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Cc: julian@tfs.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Routing nightmares. Message-ID: <199504181935.WAA00615@silver.sms.fi> In-Reply-To: <9504181539.AA06725@brasil.moneng.mei.com> References: <199504181028.NAA15230@silver.sms.fi> <9504181539.AA06725@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joe Greco writes: > Except that most workstations (in particular I am thinking of Suns) won't > really work in this scenario, if they're located on the 255.255.0.0 > interface (or at least won't be able to talk to the router-separated > subnet), for the reasons we've been discussing. Unless.... > This can be solved installing a subnetwork-route pointing to the freebsd-box's interface. This is the correct way to do this. Whether your version of the OS supports the route correctly (if there was a freebsd it would) is an issue you should resolve with your OS supplier. > Actually, this was the "solution". Proxy-arp should be still consireded as an interim-time solution, you wouldn't want to get your arp-table too huge. > > Getting the FreeBSD box to proxy ARP with two interfaces was a nightmarish > mess and I sorta had it working, but it would eventually overwrite the > information I was asking it to publish. It simply wasn't designed on a > per-interface basis. IMO, unix is not an router and real routers don't run unix... Pete
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504181935.WAA00615>