Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.misc > #7016 > unrolled thread
| Started by | dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-01-15 10:07 -0800 |
| Last post | 2013-01-25 01:44 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 137 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.misc
Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-15 10:07 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-15 18:30 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-15 18:37 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-16 00:59 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-16 10:20 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-16 12:00 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-16 04:45 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-16 12:51 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-16 13:11 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-16 06:28 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-16 14:37 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-16 14:58 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-16 15:37 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-16 08:24 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-20 19:39 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-16 17:35 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-20 19:42 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-01-15 22:30 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-16 02:41 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-01-16 19:06 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-16 20:27 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-20 19:46 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Moe Trin <ibuprofin@painkiller.example.tld.invalid> - 2013-01-20 22:07 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-21 05:31 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-21 00:17 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-21 17:33 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-01-21 21:15 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-21 21:56 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Grant <omg@grrr.id.au> - 2013-01-22 10:11 +1100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-21 23:42 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Bit Twister <BitTwister@mouse-potato.com> - 2013-01-22 00:09 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 00:33 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-22 02:53 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 19:05 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Tauno Voipio <tauno.voipio@notused.fi.invalid> - 2013-01-22 21:16 +0200
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-22 23:53 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-23 10:28 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-23 03:28 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-23 17:26 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-23 13:02 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-23 22:12 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 05:12 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-24 17:09 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-01-31 23:28 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-01 00:33 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2013-01-23 09:56 -0700
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-23 17:25 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-01-23 21:51 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-24 05:20 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 11:49 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 12:08 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2013-01-21 16:49 -0700
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 00:00 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2013-01-21 23:32 -0700
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 19:02 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 12:15 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? s_dubrovich@yahoo.com - 2013-01-22 09:08 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-22 19:07 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-22 19:38 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? s_dubrovich@yahoo.com - 2013-01-22 19:52 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 12:02 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> - 2013-01-21 16:46 -0700
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 11:56 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-01-27 14:27 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-27 18:21 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-30 04:17 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-30 12:43 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-30 23:46 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-01-31 09:03 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 03:40 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-31 09:19 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 03:44 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-01-31 12:01 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-01 01:49 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-01-31 23:19 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-01 10:23 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-01 11:23 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 12:22 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 13:49 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> - 2013-02-02 10:13 -0500
[OT] Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 16:30 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-02-02 17:48 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 18:16 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-02 20:11 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-02 14:51 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-02 21:27 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 22:30 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-02 22:49 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-03 00:45 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-02-03 00:52 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-03 11:01 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-03 13:15 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-03 13:20 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-03 15:08 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-02-05 10:22 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-05 15:20 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-05 17:22 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-05 17:59 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-05 19:40 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-05 14:17 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-06 01:22 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-06 02:11 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-06 03:21 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-05 21:19 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-06 00:21 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Whiskers <catwheezel@operamail.com> - 2013-02-03 15:21 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-02 16:24 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-02 22:46 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-02 17:57 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? John Hasler <jhasler@newsguy.com> - 2013-02-02 13:07 -0600
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 16:24 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-01 11:20 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 12:19 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 13:48 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 16:17 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-02 15:47 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-02-02 16:26 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> - 2013-02-04 03:19 -0800
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> - 2013-02-04 17:03 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-04 19:51 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-06 01:14 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-02-06 09:07 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-06 13:58 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-07 01:09 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> - 2013-02-07 00:58 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-09 13:46 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-09 15:07 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2013-02-09 17:06 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-09 17:19 +0000
ifconfig(8) vs. iproute Ivan Shmakov <oneingray@gmail.com> - 2013-02-09 17:18 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Robert Riches <spamtrap42@jacob21819.net> - 2013-02-10 04:44 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? J G Miller <miller@yoyo.ORG> - 2013-02-10 14:14 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-02-11 00:19 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-06 01:09 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? cipher <cipher@nospamforme.org> - 2013-02-04 21:46 +0000
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-02-02 17:30 +0100
Re: Using a public IP-address in my home private network? Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> - 2013-01-25 01:44 +0100
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
| From | Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-27 12:02 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ke31fn$1i6i$1@saria.nerim.net> |
| In reply to | #7053 |
Whiskers a écrit : > > If you want to have a computer connected to two networks (eg the WAN and > your own LAN), it will need two network interface cards (NICs) - Wifi or > Ethernet. In effect, the computer becomes its own router. Ridiculous. A single interface can have multiple IP addresses. It is amazing me to read all the people in this thread who want to makes things much more complicated than they are, involving NAT, multiple interfaces or WAN connetions... Guys, what the OP wants is very simple. It just relies on the capability of the router to act as a plain router for the second public address, and not to be just a "NAT box" as most SOHO so-called routers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Moe <jimoeDESPAM@sohnen-moe.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-21 16:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <NcOdnZJ8A9HRTmDNnZ2dnUVZ5uSdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #7051 |
On 01/21/2013 01:17 AM, dspfun wrote: > > I don't know the what specific IP-addresses will be used (it's not > really important which specific IP-address), other than computer2 > should have an external IP-address and be connected to a switch, and > then the switch connected to a router. Computer1 should have one(or > possibly more) internal/private IP-address(es), as described in the > original post. > > Computer2 should be directly accessible from the internet, no NAT > should be used in the router. The router can be manually configured > with routes. > The presence of the "switch" is irrelevant, assuming it is an Ethernet switch. It does not care about IP addresses, only MAC addresses. A router allows communication among independent networks with differing IP address ranges, creating an internet. I am assuming the "router" you have is actually some sort of modem interface: cable, DSL, fiber; not really a router. Without the details of the "router," little can be offered to help you. The modem may have the capability to do what you wish. No details, no answer. If what you have is the usual arrangement with a ISP (a public IP assigned by the ISP and the modem routes the packets), the suggested option that you lease a block of IP addresses from the ISP would work for you. It is simple to configure a modem to direct traffic from one of the public address to a local one, performing the same function as a router. And connections among the hosts on the local network are trivial. And the DNS issues are much simpler. Unless, of course, the "public" IP address must be some particular IP value. Then you will need to arrange a direct connection to the Internet with, say, a T1 line. > The problems I see is that traffic between computer1 and computer2 > will not work because ARP will not be able to resolve MAC-addresses > between the two, since they are on different subnets. > Yes. You need an actual router to do that. One of the computers could have two network interfaces and enable "IP Forwarding." -- James Moe jmm-list at sohnen-moe dot com
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-27 11:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ke314f$1i0c$1@saria.nerim.net> |
| In reply to | #7051 |
dspfun a écrit : > > The problems I see is that traffic between computer1 and computer2 > will not work because ARP will not be able to resolve MAC-addresses > between the two, since they are on different subnets. Nonsense. They are in the same ethernet broadcast domain, so ARP will work regardless of IP subnets. > A solution could be to manually add the MAC-address of computer2's IP- > address to both computer1 and the router? Useless. > Also, the router might have problems ARP-ing for computer2's IP- > address since on different subnet. > A solution could be to manually add computer1's and the router's MAC > addresses to computer2? See above. > Or are there better solutions for this, for example by adding a > private IP-address to computer2 as well on the same interface as the > public IP-address? This is not necessary, as long as routes are properly set on all nodes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | unruh <unruh@invalid.ca> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-27 14:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <rPaNs.23707$O02.2762@newsfe18.iad> |
| In reply to | #7118 |
On 2013-01-27, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote: > dspfun a ?crit : >> >> The problems I see is that traffic between computer1 and computer2 >> will not work because ARP will not be able to resolve MAC-addresses >> between the two, since they are on different subnets. > > Nonsense. They are in the same ethernet broadcast domain, so ARP will > work regardless of IP subnets. When C1 sends out a "whois 50.50.50.1" that packet will not get placed onto the home network, but will get shipped out via that switch, since that is where it thinks those addresses are. Even if C2 gets it it is not clear to me it would respond since it is being forwarded, not broadcast on the home network. > >> A solution could be to manually add the MAC-address of computer2's IP- >> address to both computer1 and the router? > > Useless. > >> Also, the router might have problems ARP-ing for computer2's IP- >> address since on different subnet. >> A solution could be to manually add computer1's and the router's MAC >> addresses to computer2? > > See above. > >> Or are there better solutions for this, for example by adding a >> private IP-address to computer2 as well on the same interface as the >> public IP-address? > > This is not necessary, as long as routes are properly set on all nodes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-27 18:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ke3nnp$1ps5$1@saria.nerim.net> |
| In reply to | #7124 |
unruh a écrit : > On 2013-01-27, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote: >> dspfun a écrit : >>> The problems I see is that traffic between computer1 and computer2 >>> will not work because ARP will not be able to resolve MAC-addresses >>> between the two, since they are on different subnets. >> >> Nonsense. They are in the same ethernet broadcast domain, so ARP will >> work regardless of IP subnets. > > When C1 sends out a "whois 50.50.50.1" I guess you mean "who has" (ARP query) instead of "whois" ? > that packet will not get placed > onto the home network, but will get shipped out via that switch, since > that is where it thinks those addresses are. Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. IIRC C1 and C2 are connected to the same switch and part of the same "home network". > Even if C2 gets it it is > not clear to me it would respond since it is being forwarded, not > broadcast on the home network. Again, I don't understand. What is being forwarded and not broadcast ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-30 04:17 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <794cc35e-7404-4064-b6ca-af6e3f245949@j2g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7118 |
On 27 Jan, 11:56, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-s...@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote: > dspfuna écrit : > > > > > The problems I see is that traffic between computer1 and computer2 > > will not work because ARP will not be able to resolve MAC-addresses > > between the two, since they are on different subnets. > > Nonsense. They are in the same ethernet broadcast domain, so ARP will > work regardless of IP subnets. > C1 which has IP-address 192.168.12 will/should never ARP for IP- address 50.50.50.51, even though they are on the same L2-network/ broadcast domain, right?! > > Also, the router might have problems ARP-ing for computer2's IP- > > address since on different subnet. > > A solution could be to manually add computer1's and the router's MAC > > addresses to computer2? > > See above. See above ;)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-30 12:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <keb4h8$125$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7136 |
On 30/01/13 12:17, dspfun wrote: > On 27 Jan, 11:56, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-s...@plouf.fr.eu.org> > wrote: >> dspfuna écrit : >> >> >> >>> The problems I see is that traffic between computer1 and computer2 >>> will not work because ARP will not be able to resolve MAC-addresses >>> between the two, since they are on different subnets. >> >> Nonsense. They are in the same ethernet broadcast domain, so ARP will >> work regardless of IP subnets. >> > > C1 which has IP-address 192.168.12 will/should never ARP for IP- > address 50.50.50.51, even though they are on the same L2-network/ > broadcast domain, right?! > > It wont get a response. The only way to achieve two subnets on the same physical network is to arrange a machine with two (virtual?) interfaces one on each subnet, and route between the two subnets with that, AND set uyp routing on the machines that need to communicate to use that as the route to the 'foreign' subnet. If you use the actual boundary router of course, that will already BE the default route, so that's done. >>> Also, the router might have problems ARP-ing for computer2's IP- >>> address since on different subnet. >>> A solution could be to manually add computer1's and the router's MAC >>> addresses to computer2? >> >> See above. > > See above ;) > -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-30 23:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <95b2bdf5-7d0b-4f8e-9e89-2de6c4795c7d@h2g2000yqa.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7137 |
On 30 Jan, 13:43, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 30/01/13 12:17,dspfunwrote: > > > > > > > On 27 Jan, 11:56, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-s...@plouf.fr.eu.org> > > wrote: > >> dspfuna écrit : > > >>> The problems I see is that traffic between computer1 and computer2 > >>> will not work because ARP will not be able to resolve MAC-addresses > >>> between the two, since they are on different subnets. > > >> Nonsense. They are in the same ethernet broadcast domain, so ARP will > >> work regardless of IP subnets. > > > C1 which has IP-address 192.168.12 will/should never ARP for IP- > > address 50.50.50.51, even though they are on the same L2-network/ > > broadcast domain, right?! > > It wont get a response. ARP will not even be sent out by C1 (192.168.1.2) for 50.50.50.51 since they are on different subnets. >The only way to achieve two subnets on the same > physical network is to arrange a machine with two (virtual?) interfaces > one on each subnet, and route between the two subnets with that, AND set > uyp routing on the machines that need to communicate to use that as the > route to the 'foreign' subnet. > Two subnets on the same physical network can communicate if default gateways and routes are setup to allow communication between the two. Virtual interfaces are not needed I think.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-31 09:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kedc0k$74j$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7138 |
On 31/01/13 07:46, dspfun wrote: > On 30 Jan, 13:43, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> > wrote: >> On 30/01/13 12:17,dspfunwrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> On 27 Jan, 11:56, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-s...@plouf.fr.eu.org> >>> wrote: >>>> dspfuna écrit : >> >>>>> The problems I see is that traffic between computer1 and computer2 >>>>> will not work because ARP will not be able to resolve MAC-addresses >>>>> between the two, since they are on different subnets. >> >>>> Nonsense. They are in the same ethernet broadcast domain, so ARP will >>>> work regardless of IP subnets. >> >>> C1 which has IP-address 192.168.12 will/should never ARP for IP- >>> address 50.50.50.51, even though they are on the same L2-network/ >>> broadcast domain, right?! >> >> It wont get a response. > > ARP will not even be sent out by C1 (192.168.1.2) for 50.50.50.51 > since they are on different subnets. > >> The only way to achieve two subnets on the same >> physical network is to arrange a machine with two (virtual?) interfaces >> one on each subnet, and route between the two subnets with that, AND set >> uyp routing on the machines that need to communicate to use that as the >> route to the 'foreign' subnet. >> > > Two subnets on the same physical network can communicate if default > gateways and routes are setup to allow communication between the two. > Virtual interfaces are not needed I think. > No, but then you need two physical ones instead. For that which routes between them -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-31 03:40 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <07173b11-dbca-4612-9614-d89fcacf6d61@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7139 |
On 31 Jan, 10:03, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> wrote: > On 31/01/13 07:46,dspfunwrote: > > > > > > > On 30 Jan, 13:43, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> > > wrote: > >> On 30/01/13 12:17,dspfunwrote: > > >>> On 27 Jan, 11:56, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-s...@plouf.fr.eu.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>> dspfuna écrit : > > >>>>> The problems I see is that traffic between computer1 and computer2 > >>>>> will not work because ARP will not be able to resolve MAC-addresses > >>>>> between the two, since they are on different subnets. > > >>>> Nonsense. They are in the same ethernet broadcast domain, so ARP will > >>>> work regardless of IP subnets. > > >>> C1 which has IP-address 192.168.12 will/should never ARP for IP- > >>> address 50.50.50.51, even though they are on the same L2-network/ > >>> broadcast domain, right?! > > >> It wont get a response. > > > ARP will not even be sent out by C1 (192.168.1.2) for 50.50.50.51 > > since they are on different subnets. > > >> The only way to achieve two subnets on the same > >> physical network is to arrange a machine with two (virtual?) interfaces > >> one on each subnet, and route between the two subnets with that, AND set > >> uyp routing on the machines that need to communicate to use that as the > >> route to the 'foreign' subnet. > > > Two subnets on the same physical network can communicate if default > > gateways and routes are setup to allow communication between the two. > > Virtual interfaces are not needed I think. > > No, but then you need two physical ones instead. For that which routes > between them > Only one physical interface in C1 (192.168.1.2) and one in C2 is needed (50.50.50.51 and 192.168.1.3), even though both subnets are on the same LAN. C1 (192.168.1.2) will have IP-connectivity with C2 (50.50.50.51) as long as routes are setup for that in C1 and C2.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-31 09:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87boc51zgw.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #7138 |
dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> writes: > On 30 Jan, 13:43, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> > wrote: >> On 30/01/13 12:17,dspfunwrote: >> > C1 which has IP-address 192.168.12 will/should never ARP for IP- >> > address 50.50.50.51, even though they are on the same L2-network/ >> > broadcast domain, right?! >> >> It wont get a response. > > ARP will not even be sent out by C1 (192.168.1.2) for 50.50.50.51 > since they are on different subnets. ARP requests are sent if and only if the destination address is routed to the directly attached ethernet. “On different subnets” can only really apply to very simple configurations. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-31 03:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <38b1ce93-08c5-45c8-b7b2-c4bdc02b8221@d11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7140 |
On 31 Jan, 10:19, Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote: > dspfun<dsp...@hotmail.com> writes: > > On 30 Jan, 13:43, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> > > wrote: > >> On 30/01/13 12:17,dspfunwrote: > >> > C1 which has IP-address 192.168.12 will/should never ARP for IP- > >> > address 50.50.50.51, even though they are on the same L2-network/ > >> > broadcast domain, right?! > > >> It wont get a response. > > > ARP will not even be sent out by C1 (192.168.1.2) for 50.50.50.51 > > since they are on different subnets. > > ARP requests are sent if and only if the destination address is routed > to the directly attached ethernet. When you say the "directly attached ethernet" you mean the ethernet interface of the destination? >“On different subnets” can only > really apply to very simple configurations. What do you mean by this for example?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-31 12:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87txpxef3p.fsf@araminta.anjou.terraraq.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #7142 |
dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> writes: > Richard Kettlewell <r...@greenend.org.uk> wrote: >> dspfun<dsp...@hotmail.com> writes: >> > On 30 Jan, 13:43, The Natural Philosopher <t...@invalid.invalid> >> > wrote: >> >> On 30/01/13 12:17,dspfunwrote: >> >> > C1 which has IP-address 192.168.12 will/should never ARP for IP- >> >> > address 50.50.50.51, even though they are on the same L2-network/ >> >> > broadcast domain, right?! >> >> >> It wont get a response. >> >> > ARP will not even be sent out by C1 (192.168.1.2) for 50.50.50.51 >> > since they are on different subnets. >> >> ARP requests are sent if and only if the destination address is routed >> to the directly attached ethernet. > > When you say the "directly attached ethernet" you mean the ethernet > interface of the destination? I mean the local ethernet interface. What else could it mean? You can’t name some other host’s network interfaces in a route, the kernel has no knowledge of them. >> “On different subnets” can only really apply to very simple >> configurations. > > What do you mean by this for example? I mean the terminology isn’t very useful outside the simplest of configurations. -- http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-01 01:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kef3fq$2jff$1@saria.nerim.net> |
| In reply to | #7137 |
The Natural Philosopher a écrit : > On 30/01/13 12:17, dspfun wrote: > >> C1 which has IP-address 192.168.12 will/should never ARP for IP- >> address 50.50.50.51, even though they are on the same L2-network/ >> broadcast domain, right?! Wrong. See Richard Kettlewell's reply. Looks like you eventually understood, as you wrote : "Only one physical interface in C1 (192.168.1.2) and one in C2 is needed (50.50.50.51 and 192.168.1.3), even though both subnets are on the same LAN. C1 (192.168.1.2) will have IP-connectivity with C2 (50.50.50.51) as long as routes are setup for that in C1 and C2." > It wont get a response. It will if the target has the proper return route. > The only way to achieve two subnets on the same > physical network is to arrange a machine with two (virtual?) interfaces > one on each subnet, and route between the two subnets with that, AND set > uyp routing on the machines that need to communicate to use that as the > route to the 'foreign' subnet. Nonsense. It is much simpler than you think. All you need is add the proper routes so that any node knows how to reach any subnet.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | dspfun <dspfun@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-01-31 23:19 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ce4f1399-affd-44c7-9e0c-cd8ece734da8@n2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7147 |
On 1 Feb, 01:49, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-s...@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote: > The Natural Philosopher a écrit : > > > On 30/01/13 12:17,dspfunwrote: > > >> C1 which has IP-address 192.168.12 will/should never ARP for IP- > >> address 50.50.50.51, even though they are on the same L2-network/ > >> broadcast domain, right?! > > Wrong. See Richard Kettlewell's reply. > > Looks like you eventually understood, as you wrote : > "Only one physical interface in C1 (192.168.1.2) and one in C2 is > needed (50.50.50.51 and 192.168.1.3), even though both subnets are on > the same LAN. > C1 (192.168.1.2) will have IP-connectivity with C2 (50.50.50.51) as > long as routes are setup for that in C1 and C2." > So basically, C1 (192.168.1.2/24) will send an arp request for an IP- address in any subnet/network (for example 50.50.50.51), as long as it has a route to it. C2 (50.50.50.51) will then send an arp reply to an arp request (requesting a MAC-address for 50.50.50.51) from C1 (192.168.1.2).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-01 10:23 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <keg1j8$2tre$1@saria.nerim.net> |
| In reply to | #7150 |
dspfun a écrit : > > So basically, C1 (192.168.1.2/24) will send an arp request for an IP- > address in any subnet/network (for example 50.50.50.51), as long as it > has a route to it. A direct route, yes. If the route uses a gateway, then the host will send an ARP request for the gateway address instead. General rule : the host sends an ARP request for the next hop address, whether it is the destination or an intermediate router. > C2 (50.50.50.51) will then send an arp reply to an arp request > (requesting a MAC-address for 50.50.50.51) from C1 (192.168.1.2). If it has a direct route to the sender address on the receiving interface, I guess.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-01 11:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <keg8k1$o1l$1@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7150 |
On 01/02/13 07:19, dspfun wrote: > On 1 Feb, 01:49, Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-s...@plouf.fr.eu.org> wrote: >> The Natural Philosopher a écrit : >> >>> On 30/01/13 12:17,dspfunwrote: >> >>>> C1 which has IP-address 192.168.12 will/should never ARP for IP- >>>> address 50.50.50.51, even though they are on the same L2-network/ >>>> broadcast domain, right?! >> >> Wrong. See Richard Kettlewell's reply. >> >> Looks like you eventually understood, as you wrote : >> "Only one physical interface in C1 (192.168.1.2) and one in C2 is >> needed (50.50.50.51 and 192.168.1.3), even though both subnets are on >> the same LAN. >> C1 (192.168.1.2) will have IP-connectivity with C2 (50.50.50.51) as >> long as routes are setup for that in C1 and C2." >> > > So basically, C1 (192.168.1.2/24) will send an arp request for an IP- > address in any subnet/network (for example 50.50.50.51), as long as it > has a route to it. No. It will send an arp request to the interface on the router that is on ITS subnet that is routing between the subnets.. ..then the machine will send the IP packet to tethe routre,, The ROUTER will then send an arp request to the final target. on the interface it has on THAT subnet. and when it has that, forward the packet. > C2 (50.50.50.51) will then send an arp reply to an arp request > (requesting a MAC-address for 50.50.50.51) from C1 (192.168.1.2). > -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pascal Hambourg <boite-a-spam@plouf.fr.eu.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 12:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <keist1$rq9$2@saria.nerim.net> |
| In reply to | #7154 |
The Natural Philosopher a écrit : > On 01/02/13 07:19, dspfun wrote: >>> >> So basically, C1 (192.168.1.2/24) will send an arp request for an IP- >> address in any subnet/network (for example 50.50.50.51), as long as it >> has a route to it. > > No. It will send an arp request to the interface on the router that is > on ITS subnet that is routing between the subnets.. If C1 has a *direct* route to the other subnet, then it will send ARP requests directly for the destination address. No need for a router if the source and destination are in the same broadcast domain.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 13:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <kej5hi$81a$3@news.albasani.net> |
| In reply to | #7157 |
On 02/02/13 11:22, Pascal Hambourg wrote: > The Natural Philosopher a écrit : >> On 01/02/13 07:19, dspfun wrote: >>>> >>> So basically, C1 (192.168.1.2/24) will send an arp request for an IP- >>> address in any subnet/network (for example 50.50.50.51), as long as it >>> has a route to it. >> >> No. It will send an arp request to the interface on the router that is >> on ITS subnet that is routing between the subnets.. > > If C1 has a *direct* route to the other subnet, then it will send ARP > requests directly for the destination address. No need for a router if > the source and destination are in the same broadcast domain. > If they are in the same brodcast domain they are not on different subnets. -- Ineptocracy (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-02-02 10:13 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <kejae102p59@news3.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #7159 |
On 02/02/2013 08:49 AM, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > Ineptocracy > > (in-ep-toc’-ra-cy) – a system of government where the least capable to > lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the > members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are > rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of > a diminishing number of producers. > I suggest hippocracy as a superior system of government, as contrasted to the tried and found wanting form of Ineptocracy. Hippocracy is a system of government whereby it is run by a team of hippopotami instead of people. People have shown they are incapable of slef-government, so we should give more evolved species a chance. Or perhaps dolphins.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.misc
csiph-web