From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Apr 30 13:51:15 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from cygnus.rush.net (cygnus.rush.net [209.45.245.133]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9030015321 for ; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 13:51:10 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@rush.net) Received: from localhost (bright@localhost) by cygnus.rush.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA11308; Fri, 30 Apr 1999 16:10:15 -0500 (EST) Date: Fri, 30 Apr 1999 16:10:13 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein To: Doug White Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: question about 2 subnets on the same switch. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Doug White wrote: > On Fri, 30 Apr 1999, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > > > > 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...) > > Considering you only need one, that's pretty liberal. :) Well, It's kind of a pain to run ICQ behind nat... (it's required for work) > > 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) > > ^^^^^ Er? Shouldn't this be 216.99.74.57, or is PacBell > running their ADSL boxes in routing mode? They told me to use 216.99.74.57 as my gateway, I assume the modem's interface's address is 216.99.74.57. > > 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.... > > Ah, dummynet... I haven't set this up so you're on your own. BRIDGE is kinda cool, especially since you can IPFW the bridged packets... very useful... > > Unless the inside machines need the real IPs _BADLY_, I suggest running > natd on the FreeBSD box and running the entire network using 192.168.*. > This will save you money since you don't need thse static IPs. Well... it's the ICQ thing, and i'd like to have seperate machines handling things like www/ftp without cludging it with perm_link. Thanks for the suggestions though... -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message