Re: Networking troubles with multiple nics
On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 07:59:21PM -0500, ronin2@bellatlantic.net wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003 13:56:15 -0600
> Nathan E Norman <nnorman@incanus.net> wrote:
>
> > auto eth1
> > iface eth1 inet static
> > address 192.168.1.1 <------
> > network 192.168.1.0
> > netmask 255.255.255.252
> > broadcast 192.168.1.3
> >
> > auto eth2
> > iface eth2 inet static
> > address 192.168.1.5 <------
> > network 192.168.1.4
> > netmask 255.255.255.252
> > broadcast 192.168.1.7
>
>
> Wouldn't it be easier to just use:
>
> 192.168.1.1 for eth1
> 192.168.2.1 for eth2
I don't see why. Clearly the OP is using his ethernet to create point
to point links; using more address space than necessary[1] is probably
not going to teach the OP anything. If you're going to learn IP
networking and routing, it's a good idea to quit thinking about
classful networks, IMO. Hence my example.
If it's easier to use 2 /24s, why not 2 /16s?
If you want to argue that subnetting and dotted quads are hard to deal
with, I agree. That is why on machines with more than one interface i
ignore the debian provided ifupdown package which prefers ifconfig,
and roll my own using iproute2 (in the iproute package). That allows
the much more readable
ip addr add 192.168.0.1/24 eth1
ip link set eth1 up
Of course, YMMV.
In any case, I believe a primary purpose of this list is to teach, not
just solve problems. If I can make someone _think_ I've been more
successful than if I fixed whatever was broke. Oh and BTW, the OP
responded to me privately saying that the above soultion worked just
fine. I would have just used a switch, myself.
[1] Admittedly my example "wastes" two addresses per subnet; I'm
pretty sure linux will allow /31 PTP links as per the internet-draft,
but why risk it?
--
Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:nnorman@incanus.net
Whenever men attempt to suppress argument and free speech, we may
be sure that they know their cause to be a bad one.
-- R. G. Horton
Reply to: