Date: Fri, 14 Apr 1995 07:47:09 -0400 From: Travis L Priest <T.L.Priest@larc.nasa.gov> To: Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Routing nightmares. Message-ID: <199504141147.HAA28134@licorice.larc.nasa.gov> In-Reply-To: <9504140252.AA24481@brasil.moneng.mei.com> References: <9504140252.AA24481@brasil.moneng.mei.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thu, Joe Greco <jgreco@brasil.moneng.mei.com> wrote:
>
> daneel# ifconfig ed0
> ed0: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,NOTRAILERS,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
> inet 151.186.28.254 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 151.186.28.255
> daneel# ifconfig ed1
> ed1: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,NOTRAILERS,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
> inet 151.186.20.196 netmask 0xffff0000 broadcast 151.186.255.255
> daneel#
As long as 151.186 is using a 255.255.0.0 netmask ("bignet"), you are
going to have problems. That netmask "swallows up" your 151.186.20
network since anything on that net would consider the bottom two
octets as host address, hence no routing is needed. I think the best
results you can hope for in this scheme are 'undefined.'
An easy fix would be to get a class C allocated to you and set up your
smallnet on that class C. The NIC seems to be giving class Cs out
like candy lately, so your site should not have difficulty getting a
few.
Also, it seems odd that your bridges are forwarding broadcast packets;
they should be more selective. Perhaps that's the easiest fix of all,
if you can motivate your contractor.
Travis
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504141147.HAA28134>