Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 09:09:40 -0800 (PST) From: David Wolfskill <dhw@whistle.com> To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG, nick@dcs.shef.ac.uk Subject: Re: Routing table problem Message-ID: <199810281709.JAA11703@pau-amma.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <36370F58.C6735D95@dcs.shef.ac.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Date: Wed, 28 Oct 1998 12:34:33 +0000 >From: "Nick A. Fikouras" <nick@dcs.shef.ac.uk> >I have three freebsd-2.2.2 machines with two ethernet cards each. Each >machines is connected with each other with an Ethernet link. All >interfaces have IP addresses that belong to the same subnet (say: >255.255.252.0). >The task is: when machine A is having a connection with machine B then >traffic from AtoB should use their direct route while traffic from BtoA >should use the route with the intermediate router C. > A > ep1/ \ep0 > / \ > / \ > / \ >vx0/ \ vx0 > B------------ C > vx1 vx1 [I edited the above a fair amount -- dhw] What you describe is 3 separate, distinct networks. The following pairs of IPs must reside in the same subnets; the others must be in different ones: A:ep0, C:vx0 A:ep1, B:vx0 B:vx1, C:vx1 I believe that assigning IP addresses as the above table shows will resolve the problems. For example: A:ep0 10.0.1.5/24 A:ep1 172.16.28.123/24 B:vx0 172.16.28.231/24 B:vx1 192.168.17.21/24 C:vx0 10.0.1.98/24 C:vx1 192.168.17.254/24 (Yes, the actual IPs I used were fairly silly on purpose.) And, of course, you'll need 3 separate hubs (for UTP), or 3 separate pieces of Thinnet.... (OK; maybe there are some fancier approaches with VLANs and the like. I don't see a point in complicating life that much for this case.) david -- David Wolfskill UNIX System Administrator dhw@whistle.com voice: (650) 577-7158 pager: (650) 371-4621 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?199810281709.JAA11703>