From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Mar 24 10:04:07 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA22586 for questions-outgoing; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:04:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from obie.softweyr.ml.org ([199.104.124.49]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA22518 for ; Mon, 24 Mar 1997 10:04:02 -0800 (PST) Received: (from wes@localhost) by obie.softweyr.ml.org (8.7.5/8.6.12) id WAA00669; Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:00:49 -0700 (MST) Date: Sun, 23 Mar 1997 22:00:49 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <199703240500.WAA00669@obie.softweyr.ml.org> From: Wes Peters To: Cliff Addy CC: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Multiple Class Cs on one network In-Reply-To: References: Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Cliff Addy writes: > We have a network that contains several large virtual web hosting > systems, as well as our workstations. We are fortunate to have grown to > the point that we've used up our class C network and need to add another. > However, I'm confused as to how it will be routed. > > What I want to do is add a couple more machines that will use the new > class C addresses and hang everyone off the same hub. However, these > machines would have to communicate with the machines on the old address > block. How to I tell the FreeBSD boxes that particular networks should > be looked for directly on the local net, rather than being handed off to > the T1 router? I would think that the router (Cisco 2501) could be > configured to bounce the packet back onto the network. But I don't think > it would be a good idea to run all inter-network trafffic through the router. > > I'm thinking that I'm looking at a static route, but I can't puzzle out > what the route syntax should be. Assuming your machine's primary ethernet address is 192.1.1.1 and you want to add networks 192.2.2.0 and 192.3.3.0 to the same wire: route add 192.2.2.0 192.1.1.1 1 route add 192.3.3.0 192.1.1.1 1 Essentially, you just route the packets for the new networks onto the same interface you already have. Also, you wouldn't end up routing all of the packets through your little Cisco. The Cisco at least would have to be given routes to the two new networks, and it will send ICMP Redirects to anyone on the LAN sending it a packet destined for the same LAN. -- "Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket?" Wes Peters Softweyr LLC http://www.xmission.com/~softweyr softweyr@xmission.com