Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:58:08 +0100 From: Matthew Seaman <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> To: Danny <bchadmin@eagleroaming.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Simple Router on FreeBSD - Which should I use? Message-ID: <20040419195808.GB52650@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <20040419190652.M88645@eagleroaming.com> References: <20040419190652.M88645@eagleroaming.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--cvVnyQ+4j833TQvp
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 03:06:51PM -0500, Danny wrote:
> I would like to setup a simple router, for the following:
>=20
> Enable a 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 network talk to a 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.=
0=20
> network, and obviously vise versa.
Just setup your FreeBSD box with an interface on each network, and put
'gateway_enable=3D"YES"' into /etc/rc.conf Trivially easy.
=20
> Now the 10.10.0.0 is tentative, so I am also wondering on a network with =
less=20
> then 240 network nodes, if a 255.255.0.0 subnet mask would cause any=20
> disadvantages, versus using a 255.255.255.0 subnet mask?=20
It hardly makes a difference either way. Seeing as they're all RFC
1918 network blocks (or should I say RFC 3330 nowadays?) presumably
they're on a private internet and you can do what you like there.
Cheers,
Matthew
--=20
Dr Matthew J Seaman MA, D.Phil. 26 The Paddocks
Savill Way
PGP: http://www.infracaninophile.co.uk/pgpkey Marlow
Tel: +44 1628 476614 Bucks., SL7 1TH UK
--cvVnyQ+4j833TQvp
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFAhC9QdtESqEQa7a0RAiltAJ9N54wKbsZDSonNXd/4zS7T44kdogCdFM3X
J5GAJ/+r7bCO7xS9FtBv+FY=
=+7wz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--cvVnyQ+4j833TQvp--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040419195808.GB52650>