Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ralph Spitzner Newsgroups: alt.comp.networking.connectivity,comp.os.linux.networking Subject: Re: decision difference between a routed and/or bridged lan Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 11:54:21 +0200 Organization: Hanswurst & Kaspar Hauser Ltd. Lines: 35 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: RvCFikQlDO31yztxmContQ.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120715 Firefox/14.0.1 SeaMonkey/2.11 X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.networking:1599 david nnaemeka wrote: > what is the functional, or decisional difference between a routed LAN > and a bridged LAN? I really don't get the differences clear except that > they both operate at different layers of the OSI model. can anyone help > explain what determines why a network administrator should opt for a > routed or bridged LAN or even both, if possible? > Not trying to be Albert Einstein here :-) My Wireless is 'Bridged' sot that any client requesting a DHCP Address gets one offered by the 'Router' which is essentially a NAT machine sitting behind a Cisco cable modem. Internallu everything is on 10.0.68.* bridged wireless aswell, externally I'm on whatever the ISP tells me. If you have like to floors i.e. 'Office' and say 'Webdesign' a bridge would mean that anyone could talk to anyone on an instant (they're on the same subnet), whereas if you route the traffic you can control routing :-) [Between subnets and possibly outgoing] -rasp -- See why I hate Windows users? All pain, no gain. -Howard Chu