RE: (PM) Multiple Networks.

James Courtier-Dutton (dutton@livingston-ent.co.uk)
Fri, 14 May 1999 16:29:55 +0100

Hello
I think the easiest way to do this would be to have a router which will
forward packets between the 2 subnets. The you just leave most of the PCs on
the rfc1918 addresses and those ones which need access to the internet get
changed over, but can still route locally to the rfc1918 network.
I have always thought that sub-addresses should be avoided whenever
possible.
Another way out if this is NAT which will be coming out for all PM products.
Cheers
James

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-portmaster-users@livingston.com
> [mailto:owner-portmaster-users@livingston.com]On Behalf Of Gregory A.
> Carter
> Sent: Friday, May 14, 1999 04:04
> To: Floyd Pierce
> Cc: portmaster-users@livingston.com
> Subject: Re: (PM) Multiple Networks.
>
>
> On Fri, 14 May 1999, Floyd Pierce wrote:
>
> . Well, honestly, when I dealt with this I had the default
> primary on the
> . interface and added the private address as the 'alias'. I
> think the problem
> . is that in this case the packets are sent out to the gateway,
> but have the
> . private address in the packet. (BTW I'm not a network geek, so
> excuse the
> . lack of correct terminology) However if you have a specific route set
> . up on the proper address it seems to work. EX:
> .
> . First address (added through ctl panel-network) 209.0.37.98
> . With gateway set to 209.0.37.97
> .
> . This gets the default route set up properly
> .
> . Second address (added in regedit) 192.168.200.106
>
> Now that's funny, see I thought about that too and figured, fine I'll just
> reverse the ips and make the internet ip first in regedit. However I did
> that and guess what... none of the rfc1918 addresses routed correctly and
> they are all on the same network. For the life of me I couldn't figure
> out why...accept for the same reason you mentioned, the packets are being
> sent out throught rfc1918 address but with a header from the internet
> broadcastable address so they don't get back. Rackin phrackin damn
> Winblows, if they could actually implement something correctly once in a
> while maybe things would work.
>
> I'm thinking you are right here maybe what I need is a simple proxy
> solution on an NT wrsk that will just forward the packets for the stupid
> winblows machines as I believe NT handle's ip aliasing correctly (could be
> wrong tho). Of course *hint hint* if the beta ComOS for the OR-U wasn't
> closed anymore my problems would be solved! <g>
>
> Greg
>
> +(Omni@Dynmc.Net)------------------------------------------------------+
> | Dynamic Networking Solutions InterX Technologies |
> | Senior Network Administrator bits/keyID 1024/7DF9C285 |
> | omni@interx.net omni@itstudio.net omni@undernet.org omni@webpop3.com |
> +--------[ DC 50 57 59 C3 76 46 E8 EB 75 A8 94 FE 96 9E D3 ]----------+
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
> 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
> Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>
>

-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>