Date: Mon, 8 Jan 1996 12:56:36 -0600 (CST) From: ptroot@uswest.com (Paul T. Root) To: msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au (Michael Smith) Cc: deasey@server1.netpath.net, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: network setup question Message-ID: <9601081856.AA00886@kermit.acs.uswest.com> In-Reply-To: <199601080713.RAA01405@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> from "Michael Smith" at Jan 8, 96 05:43:26 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In a previous message, Michael Smith said: > > Geoffrey Deasey stands accused of saying: > > > > I have 2 machines in a room connected to a cisco router > > ok now I add this FreeBSD machine, but its address is different > > server1 205.139.153.2 gateway 205.139.153.254 netmask 255.255.255.0 > > server2 205.139.153.3 gateway 205.139.153.254 netmask 255.255.255.0 > > cisco 205.139.153.254 > > new 206.27.32.1 gateway 205.139.153.254 netmask 255.255.255.0 > > This is stupid; the gateway isn't on the network. For this to work, the > 'new' machine's gateway must be on the 206.27.32.* network. > > > I have done this exact same setup with linux without a > > problem. for now I have taken ad address from the 205.139.153 > > block for this machine, but I would like to go to the new class c > > block for this machine. > > If this really worked under Linux then their routing is even more screwed > than I thought. I can't believe it would have... Perhaps the cisco has sub-interfaces running so the 206 net does exist. Then it could proxy arp to itself to get the route to go where it was supposed to. The only way to legitimately do it is to use sub-interfaces on the cisco. I don't suppose FreeBSD does that (ie 2 or more ip addresses on the same ethernet port). Paul. -- Paul T. Root - USWEST !NTERPRISE Networking Service ptroot@uswest.com Flying is a nack... the trick is to throw yourself at the ground, and miss..." - Douglas Adams
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9601081856.AA00886>