Dumb networking question...

[Hewitt Tech]

Thanks Jim. With 20/20 hindsight I think this problem should have been
easier but...

-Alex

----- Original Message -----
From: <jim.mcginness at att.net>
To: <gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2003 5:22 PM
Subject: Re: Dumb networking question...


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.

_______________________________________________
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss at mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss