:> fxp0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
:> inet 216.240.41.17 netmask 0xffffffc0 broadcast 216.240.41.63
:> inet 10.0.0.2 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.0.0.255
:> inet 216.240.41.21 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 216.240.41.21
:
:That's what I said.. However, I would never use the above setup if
:it's supposed to be secure. Anyone with access to a machine in the
:41.1-41.62 range would be able to sniff the 10-net, which would not
:like. (maybe your setup allows for this, but I wouldn't mind the cost
:of a $6 el-cheapo NIC and a crosscable to get more secure, it's even
:cheaper than the time spend typing this mail ;-) ).
Uhh. I don't see how this can possibly make things more secure. If
the machine needs to be on both nets and someone breaks root on it,
having a second NIC isn't going to save you.
:But in the case of two physical interfaces on the same (physical)
:segment, you get ARP errors. With aliases, you don't.
:
:Regards,
:
:Paul
ARP errors? Only if you try to configure the same IP address on
the two interfaces.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
