From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Dec 19 11:54:40 1995 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA01005 for questions-outgoing; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 11:54:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from intele.net (quervo.intele.net [204.118.149.20]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA01000 for ; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 11:54:38 -0800 (PST) Received: (wes@localhost) by intele.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id NAA08257; Tue, 19 Dec 1995 13:01:41 -0700 From: Barnacle Wes Message-Id: <199512192001.NAA08257@intele.net> Subject: Re: 2 (or more) LAN interface on SAME subnet ? To: questions@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 19 Dec 1995 13:01:40 -0700 (MST) Cc: wes@intele.net, terry@lambert.org X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk Terry Lambert said: > If I have a wire named 137.190.32, I can have two wires named > 137.190.32 with a bridge between them. Yep. > If I have a FreeBSD box as the bridge, then the two network interfaces > are connected to different wires, but the *same* subnet. Nope, can't do it. FreeBSD cannot be the bridge. Each network interface has to be connected to an IP network (including subnet) that is unique to the machine. > I think you mean that you aren't alled to hook two cards in the > same machine to the same wire. THAT makes sense. Sure you can, if you are running two different IP networks on the same wire. It doesn't necessarily make sense, but it will work. I know, our mutual ex-employer is doing this with FreeBSD 2.0.5 because they don't want to take the time to un-subnet all their machines now that they have a physical network that works! (I.e., one designed by me!) -- Wes Peters | Yes I am a pirate, two hundred years too late Softweyr | The cannons don't thunder, there's nothing to plunder Consulting | I'm an over forty victim of fate... wes@intele.net | Jimmy Buffet