Date: Sat, 20 May 1995 04:35:38 +1000 (EST) From: michael butler <imb@asstdc.scgt.oz.au> To: peter@haywire.dialix.com (Peter Wemm) Cc: davidg@Root.COM, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: More on "Hmm.. Strange..." Message-ID: <199505191835.EAA10489@asstdc.scgt.oz.au> In-Reply-To: <Pine.SV4.3.91.950519225850.12939B-100000@haywire.DIALix.COM> from "Peter Wemm" at May 19, 95 11:59:21 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Peter Wemm writes: > > That is happening because you have both the ethernet and ppp > > interfaces in the same subnet. FreeBSD doesn't support this - each > > network interface must be in a unique subnet. As far as I know, it's > > always been this way in BSD. > It should.. The code is there to support it. What the BSD kernel requires > is that the _remote_ end is in a different subnet (that's the way it's > been since BSD4.3). I'm quite sure it works in NetBSD, not because I've > tried it, but because there are a dozen or so Internet Service Providers > over here using it. Whilst I'm afraid I can't offer much in helping solve this dilemma, it raises a question for me .. Is there any mechanism in FreeBSD (-current or otherwise) to permit the dynamic allocation of IP addresses from a predetermined "pool" for the sole purpose of connecting intermittent dial-in users ? If not in the "standard" release, as an add-on ? If the above discussion requires that the (far) end-point is in a different subnet and I have two (or more) remote dial-ins, do they need to be in different subnets of their own for gated to operate correctly ? michael
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199505191835.EAA10489>