From owner-freebsd-net Mon Jul 19 13:59:28 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from pau-amma.whistle.com (pau-amma.whistle.com [207.76.205.64]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A662B152B4 for ; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:59:26 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dhw@whistle.com) Received: (from dhw@localhost) by pau-amma.whistle.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) id NAA46480; Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:58:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 13:58:45 -0700 (PDT) From: David Wolfskill Message-Id: <199907192058.NAA46480@pau-amma.whistle.com> To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, gill@topsecret.net Subject: Re: tomorrow a gateway... In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org >From: "James Gill" >Date: Mon, 19 Jul 1999 11:18:39 -0400 >I think my question can be distilled down to: What do I have to know extra >when putting two NICs of the same subnet in one host? Familiarity with Spanning Tree Protocol would seem to be a distinct "plus" for such an effort. >I am using an internal 10.*.*.* network, but only one class-C subnet of it. >10.10.10.* with a subnet mask of 255.255.255.192 dividing my network into >four subnets. Here's what I got out of rfc1878 that I based all this on: >... >Currently, everything is in the first subnet, and when the gateway is >activated, the internal stuff will be moved into the third subnet (by simply >adding 100 to the host address). ...so currently the gateway has .2 and .29 >and internal addresses are .30 - .33 but the gateway's internal interface >will be .129 and internal will be .130 - .133 . >Thanks in advance for any help... It's not as if net 10 (or any other RFC 1918) addresses are in particularly short supply. I would recommend that each NIC be set up to be on a completely separate network. Cheers, david -- David Wolfskill dhw@whistle.com UNIX System Administrator voice: (650) 577-7158 pager: (888) 347-0197 FAX: (650) 372-5915 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message