From owner-freebsd-questions Sat May 27 10:42: 9 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from post.xecu.net (post.xecu.net [216.127.136.211]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7999C37B7C7 for ; Sat, 27 May 2000 10:42:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from andy@xecu.net) Received: from shell.xecu.net (shell.xecu.net [216.127.136.216]) by post.xecu.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85BA14894; Sat, 27 May 2000 13:37:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (andy@localhost) by shell.xecu.net (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id NAA26949; Sat, 27 May 2000 13:39:26 -0400 (EDT) X-Authentication-Warning: shell.xecu.net: andy owned process doing -bs Date: Sat, 27 May 2000 13:39:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Andy Dills To: Lowell Gilbert Cc: Doug Barton , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: promiscuous ethernet In-Reply-To: <44ln0wnnjz.fsf@lowellg.ne.mediaone.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On 27 May 2000, Lowell Gilbert wrote: > I *think* he's saying that he's not just taking over an existing > installation, he's going to have to have people coming in who are > configured for, say, their own offices somewhere else on the net, and > have to have their settings work in *his* office. If that's the case, > he can get them up and running on his net, but any services they're > used to using are going to require extra programming (in pretty much > the same sense his idea for DNS did), and some won't work at all (like > printer settings or mail servers -- in that case, they may really > *want* to talk to their "home" server, and there's no way he can do > that). I realize that I may be reading a lot into this, but the fact > that he was snooping the ARP broadcasts to figure out what addresses > to NAT sounds like a bad sign. The fact that he will have to guess > the netmasks is the least of those worries... That was one of the questions I had that I wasn't very sure on; maybe you could shed a little light. My thoughts were this: how much traffic will I need to send to a customer on broadcast and not directly to his IP? In what situations would I need to know the actual netmask? I'm not sure how I feel about ignoring the netmask, so any ideas would be appreciated. Andy xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Andy Dills 301-682-9972 Xecunet, LLC www.xecu.net xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dialup * Webhosting * E-Commerce * High-Speed Access To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message