From owner-freebsd-net Mon Feb 22 18:40:56 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from phluffy.fks.bt (net25-cust199.pdx.wantweb.net [24.236.25.199]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B44881140D for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:40:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from myke@ees.com) Received: from localhost (myke@localhost) by phluffy.fks.bt (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA09386; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:40:23 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from myke@ees.com) Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:40:23 -0800 (PST) From: Mike Holling X-Sender: myke@phluffy.fks.bt To: jonathan michaels Cc: Derek Jewett , freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ethernet segment spliting In-Reply-To: <19990223132752.B6930@caamora.com.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > i don;t think so derek, the best way to describe it is that i have one class c > addr and i wnat to use this to setup a 'wan' with just this one addr space. > problem being that thier are 3 (at teh moment) locations that are > gepgraphically disperced and can only be reached by ppp over telephone lines. > > to tie this together i ned to setup several bridges over which teh remote > network segments would communicate. at least this is how i see it from what > i've managed to understand about the diferences between ethernet 'bridges' and > 'routers'. a class c would loose far too much if it were to be subneted. This sounds more like a VPN setup. I don't think attempting to "bridge" ethernet over a WAN link would work very well. - Mike To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message