Subject: Re: routing
To: Matthias Scheler <email@example.com>
From: Dustin Sallings <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/09/1997 23:18:15
On 9 Sep 1997, Matthias Scheler wrote:
# What is so bad about it? Why must ethernet be limited to broadcast mode?
# Was it burned into stone somewhere?
# There are no double IP addresses is this setup, no wrong routes,
# nothing. Image the link between the local router and the NetBSD box to
# be a serial line with slip on it. What's bad about this setup now?
# Nothing! So what can be bad about replacing the slip line with an
# ethernet? Please explain!
Nothing, when done properly, however, I don't quite get how you're
doing it in this setup. If you use a normal point to point mask (/30)
then you're using four addresses that meet on the proper boundry. I
suppose a /31 is possible, but doesn't make a lot of sense. PPP
interfaces often will use a /32, but I've never been able to get a Cisco
to accept that for a netmask.
Anyway, proxy-arp does seem to be the answer.
# > Just because Linux allows for *really bad* network design, you
# > shouldn't expect everything to.
# It's not only Linux which can handle this. The Cisco router wouldn't
# have a problem with that setup either.
# > I would either ask the Uni to do properly assign an address block,
# Not possible.
# > or use a NAT in there somewhere.
# NAT will break several services.
# Matthias Scheler http://home.owl.de/~tron/
Taos Mountain TS My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub 1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <email@example.com>
| Key fingerprint = 87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6 C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________