From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 20 10:19:34 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D68A116A4CE for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:19:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nofx.eagleroaming.com (eagleroaming.com [209.167.58.80]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78AD343D5C for ; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 10:19:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bchadmin@eagleroaming.com) Received: from www.j24.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nofx.eagleroaming.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3D45D9; Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:20:31 -0400 (EDT) From: "Danny" To: questions@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 12:20:31 -0500 Message-Id: <20040420161921.M87952@eagleroaming.com> In-Reply-To: <20040419195808.GB52650@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <20040419190652.M88645@eagleroaming.com> <20040419195808.GB52650@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> X-Mailer: Open WebMail 2.30 20040103 X-OriginatingIP: 216.75.172.241 (bchadmin) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Subject: Re: Simple Router on FreeBSD - Which should I use? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 17:19:35 -0000 On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 20:58:08 +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote > On Mon, Apr 19, 2004 at 03:06:51PM -0500, Danny wrote: > > I would like to setup a simple router, for the following: > > > > Enable a 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 network talk to a 10.10.0.0 255.255.0.0 > > network, and obviously vise versa. > > Just setup your FreeBSD box with an interface on each network, and > put 'gateway_enable="YES"' into /etc/rc.conf Trivially easy. > > > Now the 10.10.0.0 is tentative, so I am also wondering on a network with less > > then 240 network nodes, if a 255.255.0.0 subnet mask would cause any > > disadvantages, versus using a 255.255.255.0 subnet mask? > > 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. Thank you, the packets are a flowin' now. :) - D