From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Sep 4 22:28:23 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from wombat.bytecraft.au.com (wombat.bytecraft.au.com [203.39.118.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4E5737B40F for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 22:28:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lt99101401.bytecraft.au.com (unknown [203.39.118.42]) by wombat.bytecraft.au.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C68763F14; Wed, 5 Sep 2001 15:28:10 +1000 (EST) Message-ID: <002a01c135cb$8ca2d780$2a7627cb@bytecraft.au.com> Reply-To: "MurrayTaylor" From: "MurrayTaylor" To: "Joe Clarke" , Cc: References: <20010904225222.P95138-100000@shumai.marcuscom.com> Subject: Re: WAN routing choices ... Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 15:28:09 +1000 Organization: Bytecraft Systems MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Thanks for comments guys - it gells with my thoughts re simplicity ... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Joe Clarke" To: "MurrayTaylor" Cc: Sent: Wednesday, September 05, 2001 12:55 PM Subject: Re: WAN routing choices ... > 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 > > 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