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.

	//Raymond.