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>