Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 15:22:09 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@ref.tfs.com> To: dennis@etinc.com (dennis) Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Unnumbered Interfaces Message-ID: <199510302322.PAA13352@ref.tfs.com> In-Reply-To: <199510302311.SAA18575@etinc.com> from "dennis" at Oct 30, 95 06:11:48 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > >define un-numbered interfaces.. > > This seems to be the standard reply here...so here goes... > > Most routers have an option (which everyone seems to like) that > allows a serial interface to be defined without a local address. > This allows all interfaces on the machine to have the same address, > almost always the primary ethernet address. For Example... > > ed0 Address: 192.1.1.1 > ser0 PTP Address 211.14.17.1 > ser1 PTP Address:215.27.1.1 > > When using unnumbered interfaces, all of the interfaces have a "local" address > of 192.1.1.1. This is nice because all transactions from the host have the same > source address, and you also save addresses by not having to use one for each As far as I know this has always worked under BSD since 4.2 > logical or physical connection. Another and perhaps better method would be to > have a host address for the machine, which would be applied as the source > address > for all unnumbered interfaces. It allows for the appearence of a single IP > entity to > the outside world, which of course is what a single host really is. > > Given that unix really resolves to a pointer (internally) and the local > address is > only used for reference....I would think that it can be done. You'd have to > be able to > configure a PTP interface without a local address... > > you use ifconfig with the same address as the primary enet, but give it a PTP address as well, the routing code only looks at the REMOTE address to make decisions on PTP links
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199510302322.PAA13352>