From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 18 12:37:55 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) id MAA15505 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 12:37:55 -0700 Received: from silver.sms.fi (silver.sms.fi [193.64.137.1]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.10/8.6.6) with ESMTP id MAA15499 for ; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 12:37:51 -0700 Received: (from pete@localhost) by silver.sms.fi (8.6.11/8.6.9) id WAA00615; Tue, 18 Apr 1995 22:35:52 +0300 Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 22:35:52 +0300 Message-Id: <199504181935.WAA00615@silver.sms.fi> From: Petri Helenius To: Joe Greco Cc: julian@tfs.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Routing nightmares. In-Reply-To: <9504181539.AA06725@brasil.moneng.mei.com> References: <199504181028.NAA15230@silver.sms.fi> <9504181539.AA06725@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Sender: hackers-owner@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Joe Greco writes: > Except that most workstations (in particular I am thinking of Suns) won't > really work in this scenario, if they're located on the 255.255.0.0 > interface (or at least won't be able to talk to the router-separated > subnet), for the reasons we've been discussing. Unless.... > This can be solved installing a subnetwork-route pointing to the freebsd-box's interface. This is the correct way to do this. Whether your version of the OS supports the route correctly (if there was a freebsd it would) is an issue you should resolve with your OS supplier. > Actually, this was the "solution". Proxy-arp should be still consireded as an interim-time solution, you wouldn't want to get your arp-table too huge. > > Getting the FreeBSD box to proxy ARP with two interfaces was a nightmarish > mess and I sorta had it working, but it would eventually overwrite the > information I was asking it to publish. It simply wasn't designed on a > per-interface basis. IMO, unix is not an router and real routers don't run unix... Pete