Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 13:20:14 -0700 (PDT) From: julian@TFS.COM (Julian Elischer) To: pete@silver.sms.fi (Petri Helenius) Cc: jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com, julian@TFS.COM, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Routing nightmares. Message-ID: <m0s1Jks-0003w1C@TFS.COM> In-Reply-To: <199504181935.WAA00615@silver.sms.fi> from "Petri Helenius" at Apr 18, 95 10:35:52 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > 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. The SUN man pages and other docs, used to (I haven't checked recently) be very specific about only having one netmask for all nodes on the same 'allocated' (e.g. class b or c) net. I remember, because it totally stuffed up a particular network layout I was designing, and cost me mucho time and (the company's) money. > > > Actually, this was the "solution". I'm glad it worked :) > > 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... true, but it can do for some apps. > > Pete >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?m0s1Jks-0003w1C>