Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 11:49:03 +0400 From: "Artem Koutchine" <matrix@ipform.ru> To: <lucas@slb.to> Cc: <questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Networks routing, natd and subnetting question Message-ID: <000901c0d925$b3660980$0c00a8c0@ipform.ru> References: <000001c0d7af$db8d67e0$71a59ed4@ipform.ru> <20010508141007.A25810@billygoat.slb.to>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 2) Route this address directly, so, natd is not used at all and the > > machine on the localnet gets a real IP. Here is what i tried: I > > changed 192.168.0.102 to xxx.yyy.zzz.102 and on the FreeBSD box > > added: > > route add -host xxx.yyy.zzz.102 interface ed1 > > ping xxx.yyy.zzz.102 > > > > [schnipp] > > Hmm... all this contortion is necessary because your physical topology > (the arrangement of Cat. 5 cable among Ethernets) doesn't match your > IP topology. In particular, you want the machine with address > x.y.z.102 to be hooked up to the 192.168.0.0/24 network, instead of > hooked up to the x.y.z.96/27 network, where it belongs. Before > getting into obscure routing/ARP issues, try the "hardware" solution: > > 0) Assign x.y.z.102 to the box that needs that address, and physically > hook it up to the proper network; i.e., run a cable from that > machine's port in the patch panel (or whatever) to the 1601, instead > of to the hub hooked up to the FreeBSD box (or configure your > switching hub to put that box on the same 'net as the 1601, etc.). > This puts Ethernets and IP subnets in one-to-one correspondence, which > means no baroque routing is necessary. Yes, this is always an option. But the problem is that current physical topology does not allow for such connection. CISCO is directly connected to the routing FBSD box and the x.y.z.102 box is cascaded several time below the level of the FBSD router (switching hubs are cascaded). Of course, I could change the topology but I really rather not do so. What I think would really interesting to know is how to do the baroque routing you meantioned. I agree that putting x.y.z.102 on the 192.168 network is topologically incorect, but c'est la vie, it just needs to be done. As you remember from my original post, i got things routed a bit when is split the /27 network into two /28. I got it routed from local box to FBSD router and back, however could not go past the FBSD rounter. I think the problem might be either on FBSD routing rules or with CISCO not knowing that /27 was split into two /28 Artem To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000901c0d925$b3660980$0c00a8c0>