From owner-freebsd-net Mon Feb 22 19:15: 1 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from snowcrest.net (mtshasta.snowcrest.net [209.232.210.195]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7471511219 for ; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:14:59 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from djewett@snowcrest.net) Received: from bsharp (ppp361.snowcrest.net [207.201.20.89]) by snowcrest.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id TAA21867; Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:14:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <001c01be5edb$a5966be0$5914c9cf@bsharp.dubakella.tcoe.k12.ca.us> From: "Derek Jewett" To: "jonathan michaels" , Subject: Re: ethernet segment spliting Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 19:21:13 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3110.1 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Does sound like a ppp connection to the three "outstations" would be best fitting in your case. I belive you could just set up a ppp server on your central segment, and the outstations would be able to dial into the central network and "bridge" packets accross the line(s)... good luck! -----Original Message----- From: jonathan michaels To: Derek Jewett ; freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Monday, February 22, 1999 6:27 PM Subject: Re: ethernet segment spliting >On Mon, Feb 22, 1999 at 04:39:56PM -0800, Derek Jewett wrote: > >> Are you refering to CIDR (RFC1878) addressing, where you split one ethernet >> "network" into multiple "networks" segments...? If so let me know I am quite >> seasoned at "supernetting" > >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. > >thought the cdir (rfc1878) seems to have some appeal .. but it 'frightens' me >a bit, i suppose because i don;t understand it. > >regards and thanks for your reply. > >jonathan > >-- >=========================================================================== ==== >Jonathan Michaels >PO Box 144, Rosebery, NSW 1445 Australia >=========================================================== > > > >To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org >with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message