Home network routing setup

From: Chuck McManis <cmcmanis_at_mcmanis.com>
Date: Thu Apr 13 00:36:15 2000

Fair point but I'm guessing if someone had already started using
192.168.x.x addresses then they already know about private addresses. Yes,
you had better NAT those puppies, yes you can do it with Linux, or NetBSD,
or FreeBSD. It would be cooler if you set up a VMS system to do it but hey
there is fun and then there is "fun."

In any event network drivers (even on wimpy DOS boxen) make a choice when
they have a packet to send:
         1) Drop it on to the wire (which they do if it is contained in the
            that is defined to be attached to the interface)
         2) Drop on the wire encapsulated to a router that claims to know
how to get it off
            the subnet and closer to its destination.

The simplest way to do #2 is with a default static route.


At 12:58 AM 4/13/00 -0400, spc wrote:
>It was thus said that the Great Chuck McManis once stated:
> >
> > Well you have to tell the other systems how to route somehow. For
> addresses
> > that don't go the local subnet they need a routing entry. The simplest one
> > is a "default" route that points to your internet gateway, the next
> > simplest is to run routed on the gateway and it will broadcast a route to
> > the internet every 30 seconds or so.
> But is defined as a private network and won't be routed on the
>Internet. The machines that are in the network will have their
>gateway set to the machine with two NICs. Then he'll have to run software
>to NAT (Network Address Translation) his internal private addresses to one
>of the public addresses. I know it's possible under Linux or FreeBSD but I
>don't know about NT.
> -spc (And for such a simple network there is no need to run routed unless
> he wants to learn how to use routed)
Received on Thu Apr 13 2000 - 00:36:15 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:32:41 BST