From owner-freebsd-net Mon Jul 24 18:28:14 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from pogo.caustic.org (pogo.caustic.org [208.44.193.69]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9892037B78A for ; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:28:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jan@caustic.org) Received: from localhost (jan@localhost) by pogo.caustic.org (8.10.0/ignatz) with ESMTP id e6P1S7O60990; Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:28:07 -0700 (PDT) From: "f.johan.beisser" To: Mike Hoskins Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: true aliased interface? In-Reply-To: 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 the real advantage is for a goofy test i'd like to do. basically, i want to have the two interfaces on one physical for natd on one machine, without installing two cards. if i can accomplish this with just ifconfig, i would, but i can't seem to dig up any info on it. -- jan On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Mike Hoskins wrote: > On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, f.johan.beisser wrote: > > > fxp0 flags=8843 mtu=1500 > > inet 192.168.0.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 > > fxp0.1 flags=8843 mtu=1500 > > inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 192.168.0.255 > > etc... > > Hmm... like cisco subifs. What would this accomplish? The traffic is > still going over the same physical interface... so is the subif desire > for cosmetic purposes, or is there some performance aspect in mind? > > -mrh > +-----/ f. johan beisser /------------------------------+ email: jan[at]caustic.org web: http://www.caustic.org/~jan "knowledge is power. power corrupts. study hard, be evil." To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message