On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 06:43:11PM -0500, Robert Bonomi wrote:
Sorry, it _is_ impossible.
:(
simply put, to communicate _on_ a network, you have to be *ON* that
network, i.e., 'have an address in that network's address-space'.
I don't quite see why this would be required, as long as packets are
routed as they should.
It is perfectly legitimate for two (or more) separate networks to share
the same physical media.
Yes.
*ONLY* the address of the device distinguishes which network the trafic
goes to/from.
But this is the destination address on packets. The point here is, why
would the router need an address that is never used as source or
destination?
I can't see any strong reason for requiring that em1 have
an address for every directly attached subnet packets are routed
to.
Think about how 'reply' packets have to be routed by other machines
on that subnet.
Packets from other machines are routed to fe80::1234:56ff:fe78:9abd
(link local address of the router), so this part is fine.
Thanks!
_______________________________________________
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
