London BSD User Group now set up

ed joyce edjoycearthurnet at yahoo.co.uk
Mon Mar 21 20:20:40 GMT 2005


The London BSD user group is now set up. We are
planning to try and install VoIP on a couple of BSD
systems. We will attempt this sometime in April.
Anyone interested should e-mail edwardtjoyce at yahoo.com
 
Regards
Ed Joyce

--- freebsd-users-request at uk.freebsd.org wrote: 
> Send Freebsd-users mailing list submissions to
> 	freebsd-users at uk.freebsd.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
> 
>
http://listserver.uk.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> 	freebsd-users-request at uk.freebsd.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	freebsd-users-admin at uk.freebsd.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Freebsd-users digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. RE: routing confusion on home network (Kel
> Graham)
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:41:12 -0000 (GMT)
> Subject: RE: routing confusion on home network
> From: "Kel Graham" <kel at orawia.com>
> To: freebsd-users at uk.freebsd.org
> Reply-To: kel at orawia.com
> 
> 
> Kevin O'Connor said:
> >
> > Nicely put Lee that is indeed the reason. Can I
> please have several
> > glasses
> > of whatever type of beer you're drinking :-)
> >
> > Kel
> > The Netgear will have a default route to the
> public IP connection, it
> > cannot
> > build a routing table to different subnets( you
> can only get away with
> > stuff
> > like that on layer3 or better switches which learn
> routes via RIP or OSPF)
> > Unless it's a typo the Gentoo Linux PC (eth0:
> 192.168.5.2, default route:
> > 192.168.5.1) should read
> > Gentoo Linux PC (eth0: 192.168.5.2, default route:
> 192.168.5.3)
> > As the 192.168.5.3 interface on the FreeBSD box is
> the gateway not the
> > ADSL
> > 4-port modem/router.
> > You also wonder about the Network/sub-net setup.
> These terms date back to
> > the early days of TCP/IP when splitting a class A,
> B or C network up into
> > smaller sub-nets was impossible. hence terms like
> Class A network. However
> > with the introduction of more advanced network
> masking (CIDR) it became
> > possible to split up these standard networks into
> smaller (Sub Net)
> > segments. As a point of interest it also became
> possible to join several
> > Class C networks into a single Class B network
> (Super net) So the term
> > Network, subnet and supernet are, from a routing
> point of view, the same
> > thing.
> >
> > I'd be curious to know why you have this
> particular setup.
> >
> > Regards
> > Kevin
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: freebsd-users-admin at uk.freebsd.org
> [mailto:freebsd-users-
> >>admin at uk.freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Lee Brotherston
> >>Sent: 15 March 2005 14:37
> >>To: kel at orawia.com
> >>Cc: freebsd-users at uk.freebsd.org
> >>Subject: Re: routing confusion on home network
> >>
> >>Kel Graham wrote:
> >>> ah.. solved it by judicious use of NAT.  Why
> does FreeBSD say it routes
> >>> between interfaces with a simple
> "gateway_enable='YES'", when for me
> >>> this
> >>> wasn't the case? Was it because I have two
> separate networks, and not
> >>just
> >>> different subnets?
> >>
> >>Hi Kel,
> >>
> >>I suspect that the FreeBSD box was infact routing
> the traffic fine,
> >>however the netgear router had no routes for
> 192.168.5.0/24 to enable
> >>the return traffic back (a tcpdump should confirm
> this).  It would need
> >>a gateway of 192.168.0.26 setting for any
> 192.168.5.0/24 traffic in the
> >>router.  Using NAT means that the traffic used the
> address of the
> >>interface on the FreeBSD machine which the router
> could route too by
> >>virtue of being on the same subnet.
> >>
> >>Wow, did I just type that after beer? :)
> >>
> >>   Lee
> >>
> 
> 
> Thanks for the replies!
> 
> Lee: I did in fact set a static route on the router,
> for 192.168.5.0/24 to
> point to 192.168.0.26.  I think this was working, as
> other 192.168.0.0/24
> machines could ping all the machines on the
> 192.168.5.0/24 network.
> However, as you said, a tcpdump didn't show any
> packets from 192.168.0.1
> being returned to 192.168.5.2.
> 
> Most confusing!
> 
> Kevin: Thanks for the tip on the Linxu PC's default
> route. It was set to
> 192.168.5.1, as I was doggedly thinking that the
> 4port ADSL modem had to
> do something special.
> 
> The reason I have this setup is:
>  - I'm in a flat with a shared network connection
> via the netgear router
>  - I wanted my own subnet to differentiate my
> machines from the others.
>  - The 4-port ADSL modem is acting only as a hub
> (sorry I didn't mention
> this earlier) because I'm too cheap to buy a proper
> hub!
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Kel.
> 
> -- 
> +----------------------------------------------+
> | kel graham | kel at orawia.com | www.orawia.com |
> | jabber/msn/yahoo/icq: www.orawia.com/contact |
> +----------------------------------------------+
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --__--__--
> 
> ------ FreeBSD UK User's Group  -  Mailing List
> ------
>
http://listserver.uk.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-users
> 
> End of Freebsd-users Digest
>  

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 




More information about the Ukfreebsd mailing list