From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Apr 19 14:51:55 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A376D16A4CE for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:51:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from internet.potentialtech.com (h-66-167-251-6.phlapafg.covad.net [66.167.251.6]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC9D43D41 for ; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:51:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from wmoran@potentialtech.com) Received: from potentialtech.com (pa-plum1c-102.pit.adelphia.net [24.53.179.102]) by internet.potentialtech.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD7869A71; Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:51:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <408449F6.2020406@potentialtech.com> Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 17:51:50 -0400 From: Bill Moran User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; FreeBSD i386; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20031005 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Danny References: <20040419190652.M88645@eagleroaming.com> In-Reply-To: <20040419190652.M88645@eagleroaming.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Simple Router on FreeBSD - Which should I use? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 21:51:55 -0000 Danny wrote: > I would like to setup a simple router, for the following: > > Enable a 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 network talk to a 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 > network, and obviously vise versa. You'll probably just want to set gateway_enable=yes and natd_enable=yes I believe there are a number of tutorials on this, one in the handbook? > Now the 10.10.0.0 is tentative, so I am also wondering on a network with less > then 240 network nodes, if a 255.255.0.0 subnet mask would cause any > disadvantages, versus using a 255.255.255.0 subnet mask? I wouldn't recommend using 255.255.0.0. It'll work fine for now, but if you start to scale up you'll wish you didn't have 65536 hosts on a single network leg. If you're sure you'll never be scaling up, then that netmask is fine, it won't cause any problems. If you're sure, can I borrow your crystal ball some time? ;) -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com