Date: Mon, 24 Apr 1995 09:14:36 +0200 (MET DST) From: J Wunsch <j@jette.heep.sax.de> To: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Re(2): IP problem with 950412-SNAP (and earlier -SNAPs) Message-ID: <199504240714.JAA03585@jette.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <199504240354.WAA20416@bonkers.taronga.com> from "Peter da Silva" at Apr 23, 95 10:54:57 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[2 p-p-p interface with identical addresses] > > 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 ..... > > Well, I think it kinda violates TCP/IP requirements, yes. I guess it's > workable, but then you lose the ability to route to each address. > Use the remote address as routing distinction. e.g.: 192.168.1.1 <---- SLIP ----> 111.222.333.444 gate to world 192.168.1.1 <--------------> 192.168.1.* local ether route add default 111.222.333.444 will do the trick: all packets to 192.168.1.* will pass thru the ether interface, packets for the wide world will be sent out of the SLIP i/f. The host route to 111.222.333.444 is implicit in BSD as soon as the interface is up (it is _not_ implicit in Linux, as i had to find now :). You only have to deal with network routes yourself. Jörg
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504240714.JAA03585>