Re (2): Routing vs. bridging; was Re (4): Linux hub
From: Andrei Popescu <andreimpopescu@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 10:59:36 +0300
> ... IMVHO, as long as you don't have any compelling reasons to keep
> two networks more or less separate it's just simpler to bridge them.
The subordinate network here is just an Ethernet crossover cable
with the carnot Web server on the end.
From: Jesus_M. Navarro <jesus.navarro@undominio.net>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 20:55:19 +0200
> I don't remember anymore why you wanted dalton as a choke point, ...
Behind Dalton, Carnot will be protected by Shorewall. Then I can
access Carnot by telnet and FTP. With the extant arrangement
I use ssh and scp.
> Anyway, that's what bridges are for: to "patch together" to physical networks
> into a single IP network.
Routing a packet requires finding an address in the header, whereas
transmitting a frame requires removing the IP header before getting
the MAC address from the frame header. From this superficial thinking,
packet routing is more efficient than frame forwarding. Is that true?
> For you "different IP networks" setup you will need to properly configure both
> NAT and routing which it's a bit more difficult than bridging.
OK, to see the details I'll try to make both cases work.
Thanks, ... Peter E.
--
Telephone 1 360 450 2132. bcc: peasthope at shaw.ca
Shop pages http://carnot.yi.org/ accessible as long as the old drives survive.
Personal pages http://members.shaw.ca/peasthope/ .
Reply to: