I've been seeing a bunch of stuff on this and am not sure I'm fully aware of
exactly why this won't work. I read all the RFC's I could get my hands on when
I first did this (as well as all the livingston docs I could find) and didn't
see any reference to this. Obviously i'm missing some glaring fact. Anyway
I did essentially (sort of) what people are claiming I can't do... So here's
what I did:
I have several class C address and took one and chewed off a 62 host subnet
and reservered it for internal use
netmask: 255.255.255.192
addrs: xxx.xxx.xxx.0 (multicast) xxx.xxx.xxx.63(broadcast)
(usable xx.1 to xx.62)
This is the way I understand (for non broken implementations) it to work:
The multicast is now the first address in the subnet (and hence unusable
as a host IP) and the last is the broadcast (and again unusable). Everything
inbetween should be usable.
I then setup two networks one for internal people and one for dialup/dedicated
users. (This was so I could do backups and "chatty" internal stuff w/o hurting
our dedicated/dialup users throughput). One of the BSDI machine acts as a
gateway between the two networks and broadcasts its routes to the local net(s)
using RIP. This just worked from day 1. Is this different somehow than
putting the routes on the router? From the way I understand it the router still
has to understand the route through the BSDI machine anyway right? If thats
true then (some, all, a few) versions of the COMOS can do first and last nets.
Below is a cheesy diagram for those I have confused.
internal machine internal machine .....
| |
---Ethernet--(C)xx.xx.1.0-----internal net 255.255.255.192 (hosts 0-63) --
|
BSDI Host(s)
|
----Ethernet--(C)xx.xx.2.0------other class C 255.255.255.0----------------
| | |
router to world Dialup commserver Router for dedicated Lines
| | | | | | | |
|Fat Juicey T1 phone lines | Another T1
| |
Backbone provider USWest Frame
Desperatly trying to understand why what I did works when according to the
list it (technically) shouldn't.
P.S. I haven't tried this with setting the subnetting on the livingston because
I don't want to screw with an existing connection. But my argument still
stands that the router has to understand the route otherwise I couldn't see
the rest of the world from the internal machines.