Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 11:52:33 -0800 (PST) From: Julian Elischer <julian@whistle.com> To: Troy Settle <st@i-plus.net> Cc: Leif Neland <leif@neland.dk>, freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: RE: wasting ip's on dedicated lines Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.10.9911131119080.21751-100000@current1.whistle.com> In-Reply-To: <NDBBJJENKLPPKCEBOILBEEDGCAAA.st@i-plus.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 13 Nov 1999, Troy Settle wrote:
>
> Lief,
>
> You can run your connections unnumbered, but this can make it difficult to
> troubleshoot some problems.
>
> Alternatively, you can use public address space (10.*.*.*) for your PtP
> connections. This will let everything work normally as far as your internal
> stuff goes. The only side affect would be a strange looking traceroute for
> people outside your network.
>
> If you look around, you'll find that most people do use the /30 for their
> PtP connections. It's actually considered 100% usage of your IP space, and
> nobody is going to fault you for doing it or ask you to recover that space
> before allocation of additional space.
>
> -Troy
There is no such thing as a netmask for p2p links. Nor is there any need
for them to have any relationship between the near end and the far end
address.
If you used the siemens 'Munich' board (a-la PHK) or a sync card
(e.g. if_sr.c or if_ar.c) and frame relay, you could
do the following: (cheaper too)
[your site] (FreeBSD-current) (one IP address, taken from your LAN range)
|
| (telco line)
[telco frame relay or normal switch]
| |
[remote site] [remote site] Freebsd box (-current)
(1 local IP address) (1 local IP address)
where on each side the IP address used is taken from the LAN side
addresses. (PtP links don't need unique addresses only unique REMOTE
addresses. In fact We use the same local ddresson our P2P links as that
machine uses on it's own LAN interface.. thus ifconfig returns the same
address on all interfaces but differnt addresses on the remote ends.
Also the same address on the ehternet interface.
X.X.X.1(ether)[ FBSD ](wan1)X.X.X.1------X.X.A.1(wan)[FBSD](ether)X.X.A.1
[......](wan1)X.X.X.1------X.X.B.1(wan)[FBSD](ether)X.X.B.1
[......](wan1)X.X.X.1------X.X.C.1(wan)[FBSD](ether)X.X.C.1
[......](wan1)X.X.X.1------X.X.D.1(wan)[FBSD](ether)X.X.D.1
You may even be able to set up the Cisco like this but I don't know for
sure.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
> > [mailto:owner-freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of Leif Neland
> > Sent: Saturday, November 13, 1999 5:55 AM
> > To: freebsd-isp@FreeBSD.ORG
> > Subject: wasting ip's on dedicated lines
> >
> >
> > We're going to connect several sites througg dedicated lines:
> >
> > Our site
> > |
> > router 100.100.100.1/24 (cisco 2600, channelized E1 (soon))
> > modem
> > | telco lines
> > modem
> > router 100.100.101.1/30 (cisco 1005)
> > |
> > Fbsd firewall/proxy outside 100.100.101.2/30
> > | inside 192.168.0.1/30
> >
> >
> > This means I'll use 4 ip's for each remote site on the cable
> > between router and firewall:
> > 100.100.101.0: network
> > 100.100.101.1: cisco
> > 100.100.101.2: firewall
> > 100.100.101.3: broadcast
> >
> > Next site will use 100.100.101.4 to 100.100.101.7
> >
> > This seems rather wastefull.
> >
> > Can this be avoided? I could use Sangoma cards in the firewall, I guess.
> >
> > BTW, Does somebody sell cheap cisco's on the net?
> >
no but chepp PCs can be got ..
and you use ) ip addresses for the links
> > Leif
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> > with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
> >
>
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-isp" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9911131119080.21751-100000>