Date: Wed, 15 May 1996 09:55:09 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@sri.MT.net> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@lcs.mit.edu> Cc: Kristyn Fayette <kristyn@gnu.ai.mit.edu>, questions@FreeBSD.ORG (FreeBSD Questions) Subject: Re: Networking / Routing question Message-ID: <199605151555.JAA19142@rocky.sri.MT.net> In-Reply-To: <9605151437.AA16587@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> References: <199605142231.SAA15402@spiff.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <9605151437.AA16587@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > ed1 ed0
> > x.x.x.253 x.x.x.252 x.x.x.251 x.x.x.35
>
> BZZZT!
>
> IP subnets must be fully connected. You cannot have the same subnet
> on two different logical wires.
I figured as much. How would you suggest doing the following.
Background:
I will have a 32 host IP subnet, where I am using about 23 IP addresses
right now. I'd like to add a firewall box on one end of the link
connected to router. So, I have 2 machines on one-subnet, and the rest
of my network on the other subnet.
ethernet ethernet
[ Internet ] <--> Router <--------> Firewall <--------> My machines
Since I only have 32 IP addresses available I don't want to waste any IP
addresses if I can help it, especially considering I expect to use a few
more addresses beyond the 23 I have now.
Since I have two ethernet segments, I must have two different subnets,
but I don't see any easy solution to the problem. It would be nice if I
could use the ethernet segment as a point-point connection in this case
(for latency & BW ethernet is the cheapest way to go).
What would you suggest?
Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199605151555.JAA19142>