Dumb networking question...

jim.mcginness at att.net jim.mcginness at att.net
Wed Apr 2 17:22:35 EST 2003


Alex (Hewitt Tech) wrote:

 > So the person who said there
 > might be a routing problem was correct. Simply setting the two LANs to
 > 192.168.1.* and 192.168.2.* respectively fixed the problem.

I think that may have been me, but it was in a message that didn't go to the 
list. [I don't consider myself a networking expert, it often takes me lots of 
trial-and-error to solve these kinds of problems -- but if someone wanted me to 
solve their problems I'm available!]
----------------------  Forwarded Message:  ---------------------
From:    jim.mcginness at att.net
To:      "Hewitt Tech" <hewitt_tech at attbi.com>
Subject: Re: Dumb networking question...
Date:    Tue, 01 Apr 2003 13:55:48 +0000

I may be misunderstanding, too, what you're trying to accomplish. What I saw 
that made me think there might be a problem was that, given the address 
assignments and subnet masks involved, there was no way for a host to 
determine, from the IP address alone, whether it must direct a packet to the 
gateway or send it directly on the LAN. This decision takes place at the 
routing level and once it's made, the lower level doesn't have the capability 
to change it -- and it's only the lower level (using ARP, etc) that knows which 
MAC addresses are local.

It I were doing this, I'd set up distinct subnets for the two sides of the 
bridge/tunnel.




More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list