Re: One Ethernet connection for Everything

On Nov 4, 8:45 pm, Chris Cox <notc...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Bob Bob wrote:
Chris

The term "switch" use to always mean something that worked in layer 2.
This meaning the client MAC address in most networks. Nowadays you often
see the term "layer 2 switch" or "layer 3 switch". Layer 3 implying IP
addresses in most cases and not being that common in cheaper boxes. (A
router is in a sense layer 3 switch)

Layer 3 switching may be problematic for an aliased interface if not
setup correctly. Layer 2 however works fine.

Hubs (layer 1 if you like) will also work fine with an aliased
interface. Hubs are "stupid" in that they "repeat" everything that
appears on one input to all outputs. Layer 2 switches on the other hand
learn what MAC addresses are on what physical ports and only output data
to that port if that MAC is the destination. This of course can give
better throughput than a hub.

Oh.. the issue with regards to isolation. That's all I meant.
If you are wanting to setup a gateway with a firewall, it's
probably best on a switch vs. a hub.



Apologies for the waffling..

No problem... I liked the explanation.



Bob

It can be done with using subinterfaces. Just write your one iptables
firewall-script so you can use alias names. This isn't the savest
solution because the other hosts in the network can bypass the router
be setting an other gateway (this problem allways exists when a
lollypop-gateway).

It will work with a hub also, the only thing to prefer a switch is the
speed in the network. A switch will be faster if there are more than 4
hosts in the network (thats some basic rule I use), this ios because a
router copy's all the input on one port too al the others, so if 2
hosts send something at the same time, the packets will interfere with
eatch other and a collesion will be created (after this both hosts
would resend there packets after a random time of waiting).

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Freebsd 5.1 <-> Win XP Networking problems
    ... Danny MacMillan wrote: ... >> from any ip number forming part of that network and from the netmask. ... > located external to my network it should send the packet to the router ... > (using the router's MAC address) instead of arp-ing for the MAC address ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: VPN over wireless
    ... Support with a Cisco Switch it would work. ... on my network - and no success. ... You will still the need the Router to issue DHCP and ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)
  • RE: Active Directory New Site
    ... The internal uplink to the router would be on your 192.168.16.0/24 network ... Would it be as simple as putting the router between the existing switch, ... The piece of equipment you are missing is a router to get you from one ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
  • Re: Ethernet network wiring ?s
    ... >>> the planned network is designed correctly and for my own education on ... Since you already have a router, ... Apple calls this protocol Bonjour. ... And because Mac 1 and Mac 2 have private network addresses, ...
    (comp.sys.mac.hardware.misc)
  • RE: Active Directory New Site
    ... I was warned off the RRAS service for this type of network challenge. ... a new switch with the second redundant server/dfs replica on? ... Sites and Services to create a new site, then inside that, the server object ... The piece of equipment you are missing is a router to get you from one ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)