Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 30 Apr 1999 03:18:59 -0500 (EST)
From:      Alfred Perlstein <bright@rush.net>
To:        questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   question about 2 subnets on the same switch.
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.990430025737.7628K-100000@cygnus.rush.net>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

I recently got ADSL from pacbell and I have a weird problem that
I have found a fix for, however i think the fix is a hack.

pacbell gave me a /29 subnet (btw, only 5ip addresses stinks...)

my goal was to still have ipfw filtering through my router/firewall
(freebsd 4.0 that i keep quite current)


 ____________      ____________        ______________
| ADSL modem |----| Fbsd Bridge|------|100mbit switch|
`------------'    `------------'      `--------------'
             ^    ^            ^        |||      ||| 
             |    |            |      192.168   real IPs
  216.99.74.57    |    216.99.74.58
  (gw address)    |       (xl0)
                no ip
                (de0)


Now the cool part:

everything works.... sorta... :(

the Bridge is running the net.link.ether.bridge + bridge_ipfw sysctls
to forward packets, note that the de0 interface on the bridge doesn't
have an IP address....

without setting up routes with "-iface" the 192.168. and 216.99.74.58-63
can't talk to each other.

right now i have
"route add 192.168.2.0/24 -iface fxp0" forcing the 216.99.... machines
to talk to the 192.168 machines on the local wire and:
"route add 216.99.74.58/29 -iface fxp0" on the 192.168 machines to force
them to talk to the other subnet...

this seems to work, and if i stick natd on the bridge i think it will
even work for aliasing the 192.168 subnet...

it just looks wrong, and feels wrong because i would like to have a
windows box on the same switch but with one of these "real ips"
but i fear i will be unable to get it to talk to the 192.168 subnet...

I'm trying to avoid having to route through the bridge because the machine
isn't powerful enough to forward 100mbit and it will create unnessesary
bottlenecks...

any suggestions?  there has to be a better way to get the machines to
realize that these two subnets should be resolved locally instead of 
attempting to use the gateway....

thanks,
-Alfred



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?Pine.BSF.3.96.990430025737.7628K-100000>