[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Netmask

Ok, I've had a couple of people contact meoff list about this.

This is the common concensus, athough I'd keep them on the same class C
to keep things like my firewall scripts working without modification.

But back to the dhcp thing. I had failed to notice that all I needed was
the correct netmask in the subnet declaration to get it to serve from
different ranges. I had noticed that you could pass an interface inon the
command line to have it listen on only one interface which is why I was
thinking you'd need to run 2 servers.

But yes, this sounds perfect. The second nic is really the key to
enforcing the provacy as I had suspected. Thanks!

Since it's a 1000 miles away I think I'll wait a while before implementing
this solution though :)


On Sat, 12 Feb 2000, Gordon Messmer wrote:

> Charles Galpin wrote:
> > But where I thought it wouldn't work was the fact that I had them all
> > using dhcp. How would I be able to serve them Ips from two different
> > ranges? I think the amswer is to add another nic to the linux box, plug
> > the second network into it, and (somehow) setup two dhcpd servers to each
> > serve on of the interfaces.
> Install two nics in the Linux box.  Use different class C's to keep
> things simple (192.168.2.x/24 and 192.168.3.x/24)
> Each of the hubs should connect to one of the linux box's NICs.  If your
> default "forward" policy is DENY (and it should be), then the two
> networks can't see each other.  Add another rule to masquerade the
> second class C, and you're set.
> DHCP won't require two servers, just another subnet declaration in the
> configuration file.
> Good luck  : )

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]