From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Dec 18 14:00:47 1995 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA22566 for questions-outgoing; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 14:00:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.159]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA22558 for ; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 14:00:41 -0800 (PST) Received: by halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu; (5.65/1.1.8.2/19Aug95-0530PM) id AA08392; Mon, 18 Dec 1995 16:57:57 -0500 Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 16:57:57 -0500 From: "Garrett A. Wollman" Message-Id: <9512182157.AA08392@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> To: M C Wong Cc: freebsd-questions@freefall.FreeBSD.org (freebsd-questions@freefall.cdrom.com) Subject: 2 (or more) LAN interface on SAME subnet ? In-Reply-To: <199512172320.AA091442430@hp.com> References: <199512172320.AA091442430@hp.com> Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk < 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