Subject: Re: routing
To: Dustin Sallings <email@example.com>
From: Raymond Wiker <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/09/1997 11:29:12
Dustin Sallings writes:
> On Tue, 9 Sep 1997, Matthias Scheler wrote:
> # On Mon, Sep 08, 1997 at 03:05:43PM -0700, Curt Sampson wrote:
> # > Why not just set up a /30 subnet for this instance?
> # I said *two* single IP adresses. The adresses may not be in a single
> # /30 block maybe not even in the same /24 network.
> # > Having a way to change the semantics of Ethernet or whatever it is you
> # > happen to be using seems a bit....pointless.
> # I must object. I know a NetBSD user who is forced to use a horrible
> # tunneling construction because NetBSD doesn't support this. He got
> # 2 IP address from our Univerity (.83 and .84, obviously not in the
> # same /30 block) for his leased line, one is used for the router at the
> # University the other one for it's NetBSD system. The first solution which
> # cames to one's mind is something like this:
> This is not the fault of NetBSD, this is *really bad* network
> design. Just because Linux allows for *really bad* network design, you
> shouldn't expect everything to. I would either ask the Uni to do properly
> assign an address block, or use a NAT in there somewhere.
Doing it "properly" would require four addresses instead of
two... The principles of "good network design" do not really apply to
connecting a single host to a remote router.