Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 13:44:34 +1000 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@panda.hilink.com.au> To: John Gunkel <jgunkel@tbf.net> Cc: "'freebsd-isp@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: virtual hosts through gateway to dummy net device Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.970429134130.237A-100000@panda.hilink.com.au> In-Reply-To: <01BC5421.A800A600@atdot>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 28 Apr 1997, John Gunkel wrote: > Is it possible? > > My provider is suggesting that he would like my virtual host(s) on a different > subnet that my machine's IP address. This would be no big problem, but > then he also mentions that my machine would have to do some gatewaying. > (My apologies for being so vague, he's no easy guy to get info from.) > > Anyway, I conjured up the idea of creating another dummy device to bind > to the virtual host subnet, but get the response "no route to host" when I try > to ping it. > > the device name is lo1, (the second loopback device: NOT 127.0.0.1) > is configured in a similar way to lo0 except that it has the address > 192.168.2.1 whereas ed0 has the address 192.168.1.1 and works > beautifully. Why use lo1? I use lo0 quite happily. # ifconfig lo0 127.0.0.1 # ifconfig lo0 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xffffffff alias .... # ifconfig lo0 192.168.1.254 netmask 0xffffffff alias # route add 192.168.1.0 127.0.0.1 On other machines, add a route to 192.168.1.0/24 via your machine's ethernet IP address. Of course, if you are using subnets, adjust the netmasks accordingly. Danny
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.91.970429134130.237A-100000>