From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Apr 23 20:38:01 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id UAA20077 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 20:38:01 -0700 Received: from haven.uniserve.com (haven.uniserve.com [198.53.215.121]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id UAA20058 for ; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 20:37:55 -0700 Received: by haven.uniserve.com id <200>; Sun, 23 Apr 1995 20:51:29 -0700 Date: Sun, 23 Apr 1995 20:50:45 -0700 (PDT) From: Tom Samplonius To: Peter da Silva cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Re(2): IP problem with 950412-SNAP (and earlier -SNAPs) In-Reply-To: <199504240051.TAA16133@bonkers.taronga.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Sun, 23 Apr 1995, Peter da Silva wrote: > > or else the kernel restriction on routing to the local > > interface address needs to be relaxed (but what if you have multiple > > point-to-point links sharing the same address). > > How could you do that? Each interface needs to have a unique address. No it doesn't. I've run a SLIP interface and an ethernet interface on a FreeBSD machine both having the same address. I know that it is opinion of some that this shouldn't work, but ..... Tom