Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 12 Dec 2000 03:24:55 +0100
From:      Danny Pansters <danny@ricin.com>
To:        cjclark@alum.mit.edu
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Configuring Gateway/NAT on Freebsd -- different networks?
Message-ID:  <00121203245500.28610@ricin.localnet>
In-Reply-To: <20001210150314.P96105@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com>
References:  <Pine.BSF.4.10.10012101425590.91853-100000@www.newsindex.com> <20001210150314.P96105@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Having read the discussion so far I wonder: isn't the problem related to 
having your dsl link plugged into your hub. I have cable, not DSL, but in my 
case I definately can't plug my cable link in my hub and it would magically 
connect to my internally networked boxes.

Now I'm not an expert on this, but my guess would be your DSL provider uses 
DHCP like my cable provider does and that you prefer to configure your 
ethernet interface statically like I do too. My next guess would be that your 
provider requires a box (ethernet card) not some sort of bridge bridge (your 
hub) to tell them its present, yell at their router and ask for name 
resolving etc. Your hub can't do that.

It just doesn't seem logical to me that it would work the way you're trying.
And why use the 172.16 range and not the 192.168 which is a c class so the 
netmask one would guess would actually be the right one? why complicate 
things.

I've worked with a small ISP for over a year (they used Debian Linux) and we 
used the multiple IP#'s on interfaces for apache to have seperate IP numbers 
for our clients' websites, before we switched to virtual hosting. But in 
those cases all the eth0:1 .. eth0:n interfaces were on the same network as 
the eth0 (replace eth with xl if you like). Maybe it could work if you'd find 
a supernet/mask that includes both your dsl IP# and your local Ip range, if 
possible??

Anyway, like I said, I certainly don't know everything, and if somewhere my 
reasoning is way wrong, please someone let me know. It's an interesting case.
Maybe I'm incorrect in assuming that what's being discussed here is not the 
same as the trick described in the paragraph above?

I'd be interested in hearing what other people think, I've often wondered 
about how far one can take this "interface splitting".

Best regards,

Danny


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?00121203245500.28610>