[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: default gateway on different subnet
Greg A. Woods; Planix, Inc. wrote:
An additional netmask is not really sufficient information with which to
specify another IP network, at least not for the whole picture to work.
Even if the network number portion matches bit for bit up to the longest
netmask doesn't mean you can get away with just one host address when it
comes to trying to do routing. Networks are specified by a network
number and a netmask. Just because you can do a bit-for-bit matching of
two different masked network numbers and see that they match a given
host IP doesn't mean you can easily create a mechanism which allows for
use of a host IP and a bunch of netmasks to specify a cloud of
interconnected networks, at least not on top of a system which currently
is designed to specify independent networks (whether they're connected
to the same interface or not).
In any case you don't really have a proper cloud of networks in the way
you've described the addresses being used. You have one network and
some hosts have artificially restricted their view of that network by
specifying a narrower netmask than they could. I'm not sure how this
affects ARP, but at least from their IP routing table's perspective they
cannot talk to all the hosts on that network. They need to expand their
netmask if they want to see the whole network.
i.e. it's all an implementation detail for the most part and there's a
lot of allowed flexibility here.
You might get a wee bit further with this line of thinking if you were
to change the question slightly and suggest that the gateway address is
_not_ on a different subnet but rather is on the subnet with the larger
netmask. Then essentially you don't have two networks any more, just
one. The smaller subnet is simply a logical creation invented elsewhere
in the network, and it is irrelevant to the host in question. So long
as the ethernet and ARP will allow the host in question to see every
host on the whole local area network (that it needs to see), then you're
I.e. just pick the largest netmask, the one that allows you to "see" the
IP address of the default gateway as if it is on the same network as the
host, and be done with it!
So, if I'm seeing this right then all I can say is that this artificial
subnetting of a larger IP network which is all actually on the same LAN
into smaller subnets is just plain unnecessary and should even be
described with many other nasty words that I won't use right now.
Well as i read the setup example in the guide, thats why we specify a
route to a host and not a network. first on the network not "attached"
to an outside network, uses this network settings to reach a "gateway"
Dont know if it is a proper gateway follwoing exact definitions.
Then it asks to be directed to that networks gateway _host_, with that
networks, settings. So the network mask of the different networks
And the request is then led out to to a outside network.
Isnt that so?
This all presumes the other hosts on this cloud of multiple networks
are all configured in some reasonable way to be able to get packets
back to you as well of course.
A proper cloud of networks all connected to the same interface will
require separate host addresses for each network; at which point
specifying different gateways (for specific networks) on each of those
networks is already supported. You still only get one default route, of
course, but that's sensible too.
Main Index |
Thread Index |