From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Oct 19 21:30:50 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from jason.argos.org (a13b146.neo.rr.com [204.210.197.146]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 711DA1A7E8 for ; Tue, 19 Oct 1999 21:30:47 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from mike@argos.org) Received: from localhost (mike@localhost) by jason.argos.org (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id AAA29447; Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:30:16 -0400 Date: Wed, 20 Oct 1999 00:30:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Mike Nowlin To: Nick Rogness Cc: Brian Beattie , hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: natd question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > ( ) +-------+ +-------+ ( ) > > + + | | | | + + > > ( 130.144.120/22 ) -- |FreeBSD| ---- |FreeBSD| --( 130.144.120/22 ) > > + (real) + | | | | + (test) + > > ( ) +-------+ +-------+ ( ) > > (~~~~~~~~~~) (~~~~~~~~~~) If the whole purpose of this is to (as stated in the original message) avoid running Sneakernet between the two networks, why not use a protocol that really doesn't care about IP addresses, network masks, etc. -- possibly UUCP... It's pretty easy to set up, and if you run it over a 115200 baud serial line, performance is quite adequate for most things, and you won't have to deal with the fact that the two nets share addressing. If you're not planning on using UUCP in common use on the final production network, the changes you'd have to make in the config files for it between the two networks wouldn't make a bit of difference once testing is done -- even if you were, the changes still shouldn't make any difference unless you intentionally tried to create problems. (mental reference to a recent thread on -security, I believe....:) ) --mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message