Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 16:57:57 -0500 From: "Garrett A. Wollman" <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> To: M C Wong <mcw@hpato.aus.hp.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freefall.FreeBSD.org (freebsd-questions@freefall.cdrom.com) Subject: 2 (or more) LAN interface on SAME subnet ? Message-ID: <9512182157.AA08392@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199512172320.AA091442430@hp.com> References: <199512172320.AA091442430@hp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Mon, 18 Dec 95 10:20:28 EDT, M C Wong <mcw@hpato.aus.hp.com> said: > Ok, all the machines are FreeBSD 2.1R, anyway. Now, we want to > dedicate a new interface and a separate `physical' segment for the > server for big binaries write access, but without having to use up > a different subnet (scarce). So, ideally, the new interface must > be on the same logical subnet as the existing one, but it is on a > different physical segment. > Is this doable ? No. > work, at least in theory. From memory there is no restriction on > physical interface and logical subnet. Please correct me if this is > not true. This is not true. The Internet Architecture requires that logical subnets be fully-connected. The BSD Architecture requires that every network interface be connected to a unique subnet. -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... wollman@lcs.mit.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance. Opinions not those of| It is a bond more powerful than absence. We like people MIT, LCS, ANA, or NSA| who like Shashish. - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9512182157.AA08392>