Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:53:13 +0200 From: Lionel Fourquaux <lionel.fourquaux@normalesup.org> To: Robert Bonomi <bonomi@mail.r-bonomi.com> Subject: Re: routing to a directly attached subnet without an address in this subnet Message-ID: <20110425115313.GB4647@phare.normalesup.org> Resent-Message-ID: <20110425115525.GA7476@phare.normalesup.org> In-Reply-To: <201104242343.p3ONhBld001779@mail.r-bonomi.com> References: <20110424202954.GA16373@phare.normalesup.org> <201104242343.p3ONhBld001779@mail.r-bonomi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 06:43:11PM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote: >Sorry, it _is_ impossible. :( >simply put, to communicate _on_ a network, you have to be *ON* that >network, i.e., 'have an address in that network's address-space'. I don't quite see why this would be required, as long as packets are routed as they should. >It is perfectly legitimate for two (or more) separate networks to share >the same physical media. Yes. >*ONLY* the address of the device distinguishes which network the trafic >goes to/from. But this is the destination address on packets. The point here is, why would the router need an address that is never used as source or destination? >> I can't see any strong reason for requiring that em1 have >> an address for every directly attached subnet packets are routed >> to. > >Think about how 'reply' packets have to be routed by other machines >on that subnet. Packets from other machines are routed to fe80::1234:56ff:fe78:9abd (link local address of the router), so this part is fine. Thanks!
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110425115313.GB4647>