From owner-freebsd-questions  Tue Sep  4 19:55:50 2001
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from shumai.marcuscom.com (rdu57-28-046.nc.rr.com [66.57.28.46])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23A5337B405
	for <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue,  4 Sep 2001 19:55:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (marcus@localhost)
	by shumai.marcuscom.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f852tfn95947;
	Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:55:41 -0400 (EDT)
	(envelope-from marcus@marcuscom.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: shumai.marcuscom.com: marcus owned process doing -bs
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:55:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Clarke <marcus@marcuscom.com>
To: MurrayTaylor <MurrayTaylor@bytecraftsystems.com>
Cc: <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject: Re: WAN routing choices ...
In-Reply-To: <017a01c1359e$4c60c600$2a7627cb@bytecraft.au.com>
Message-ID: <20010904225222.P95138-100000@shumai.marcuscom.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <freebsd-questions.FreeBSD.ORG>
List-Archive: <http://docs.freebsd.org/mail/> (Web Archive)
List-Help: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=help> (List Instructions)
List-Subscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=subscribe%20freebsd-questions>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:majordomo@FreeBSD.ORG?subject=unsubscribe%20freebsd-questions>
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

If it were me, I'd opt to use a separate RFC1918 on the WAN (albeit not a
class C [though you could since they are expendable addresses]), and
route with proper IP next hops.  Something like:

ifconfig ng0 inet 192.168.2.1 netmask 255.255.255.252
route add -net 192.168.1.0/24 192.168.2.2
route add default <internet>

ifconfig ng1 inet 192.168.2.2 netmask 255.255.255.252
route add default 192.168.2.1

This just seems cleaner to me.

Joe

On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, MurrayTaylor wrote:

> I am extending our company network and invite comment
> as to the 'most useful' / 'least hassle' addressing schema
>
>
>
>         +------------+
>         |   routing  |ng0
> LAN a --+    host    +---------------- internet
>         |     A      |
>         |            +-------+
>         |            |ng1    |
>         +------------+       |
>                             -/-
>                           WAN link
>                             -/-
>         +------------+       |
>         |   routing  |ng0    |
> LAN b --+    host    +-------+
>         |     B      |
>         |            |
>         +------------+
>
>
> FWIW the internet link and the WAN link are via a frame relay
> setup with netgraph, and nat -u is running on host A(ng0).
>
> LAN a has a legal range 203...
> Host A(ng0) has a legal ip 139...
>
> LAN b is a RFC1918 net  192.168.1.0
>
> I can setup the WAN link on a different RFC1918 net 192.168.2.0
> and route accordingly
>
> on A
> ifconfig ng1 192.168.2.1 -netmask 255.255.255.0
> route add -net 192.168.1.0 192.168.2.2
> on B
> ifconfig ng0 192.168.2.2 -netmask 255.255.255.0
> route add default 192.168.2.1
>
> _or_
>
> I can just setup the routing tables with the interface names only
>
> on A
> route add -net 192.168.1.0 -interface ng1
> on B
> route add default -interface ng0
>
> The Exam Questions ;-)
> [1] If you were doing this WAN net, which method would you choose?
>
> [2] Explain your choice?
>
>
> TIA
>
> Murray Taylor
> Bytecraft Systems Pty Ltd
> murraytaylor@bytecraftsystems.com
>
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
>
>


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