Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 01:22:43 +0100 From: "Roger 'Rocky' Vetterberg" <listsub@rambo.simx.org> To: Thomas Cannon <tcannon@noops.org> Cc: "Brian T.Schellenberger" <bts@babbleon.org>, Clark Mankin <cmankin@harbornet.com>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD network hired guns? Message-ID: <3C476AD3.7010901@rambo.simx.org> References: <20020117155808.X97701-100000@stereophonic.noops.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thomas Cannon wrote: >>>gateway of 0.0.0.0 and unfortunately BSD is completely unwilling to accept >>> >>Your gateway is 0.0.0.0 ? That's . . . um . . . rather unconventional, isn't >>it? I thought that was a reserved (illegal) IP address. In fact, I'm really >>pretty sure that it is. Does Linux really accept a 0.0.0.0 address? >> > >Nah, that's plenty legal. It just means that the whole internet is on the >local LAN. > >If you have a router running proxy arp, when that machine tries to connect >to the outside world, it'll arp for the MAC thinking the remote machine is >local, the router will answer for it, and route the traffic. Useful if you >have more than one router and don't want to configure a default route in >case that router dies. It's been replaced by better stuff, like HSRP, >FSRP, VRRP, and the like ... but yes, it is legal. But it's also not what >he's trying to do, either. > >And I certainly wouldn't encourage anyone else to, either ;-) > >thomas > Just a quick question: If the fbsd box in question is assigned an IP address in the 209.180.198.17 space with netmask 255.255.255.248, how will that make it believe that all machines are on the local lan? Im no expert, but I thought it was the netmask that decided the size of the lan, not the default route? -- R To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3C476AD3.7010901>