From owner-freebsd-doc Mon May 6 10:28:54 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-doc@freebsd.org Received: from mail.alexdupre.com (212-41-211-209.adsl.galactica.it [212.41.211.209]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3592D37B406 for ; Mon, 6 May 2002 10:28:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from alexdupre.com ([192.168.0.101]) by mail.alexdupre.com (MERAK 3.10.011) with ESMTP id F05B6CDE; Mon, 06 May 2002 19:33:11 +0200 Message-ID: <3CD6BD40.7040001@alexdupre.com> Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 19:28:32 +0200 From: Alex Dupre User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.9+) Gecko/20020425 X-Accept-Language: it, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ceri Davies , doc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Advanced Networking Question References: <20020506124528.GA7841@submonkey.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-doc@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Ceri Davies wrote: > Either way, routing tables are set up so that each subnet knows > that this machine is the defined gateway (inbound route) to the other > subnet. This configuration, with the machine acting as a Bridge <===== > between the two subnets, is often used when we need to implement > packet filtering or firewall security in either or both > directions. > > Now I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that routing was a layer > 3 function, and bridging was layer two, so isn't the statement that the machine > is acting as a bridge incorrect (since it also states that the machine is doing > routing) ? Yes, you are right. A bridge doesn't do routing between two different subnets. That's a router task. IMHO in that phrase the word "Bridge" should be replaced by "Router". Alex Dupre To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-doc" in the body of the message