Re: ip masquerading/subnets
- From: "Mikkel L. Ellertson" <mikkel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:50:26 -0600
Craig White wrote:
box 2 and 3 should be on same subnet as box 1 ( 192.168.1.0/24 ) becauseIt looks to me like he is trying to use the Linux box as a wireless
wireless access point is not the same thing as a router.
Craig
bridge, but is trying to do it without bridging. It can be done, but
only if you give every box on the 192.168.1.0/24 network a path to
the 192.168.2.0/24 that uses the Linux box as a gateway, or if you
can configure the D-link router to add a static route to the
192.168.2.0/24 network using 192.168.1.5 as the gateway. (I have not
read the manual on this router, so I do not know if that is possible.)
Even though it is a little harder to set up, in the long run
bridging eth0 and ath0 on the Linux box, and having everything on
the 192.168.1.0/24 network would be my choice.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
- References:
- RE: ip masquerading/subnets
- From: bruce
- RE: ip masquerading/subnets
- From: Craig White
- RE: ip masquerading/subnets
- Prev by Date: RE: ip masquerading/subnets
- Next by Date: Re: ip masquerading/subnets
- Previous by thread: Re: ip masquerading/subnets
- Next by thread: Re: ip masquerading/subnets
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|