----- Original Message -----
> From: "Nathan Eisenberg" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected], "pfSense support and discussion"
> <[email protected]>
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 2:56:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [pfSense] pfSense help with creating rules
> > I think the entire ISP operation I partly run has... three routers
> > that support it, AFAIK. So for all practical intents and purposes,
> > that doesn't exist for me.
> >
> > It would be nice, most definitely, if it were supported by more
> > equipment, but it's just not (in my corner of the world, anyway).
> >
> > So yes, for equipment that supports it, you're right - a /31 is the
> > smallest IPv4-over-ethernet subnet.
> >
> > (There's also a philosophical point of whether Ethernet can ever
> > truly be a PtP media even when physically connected PtP...)
>
> My Cisco 6509s/7204s/3550/3560/linux boxes support it just fine
> (philosophy aside, it *works* over ethernet, even in a test case when
> 'PtP' really meant 'these are the only two ports in the VLAN').
> Anything I own with an ARM chip (Mikrotik, Ubiquiti, or general
> embedded hardware) in it, and my PFsense boxen, don't support it at
> all. Very sad - some days, it almost makes me want to roll a bunch of
> iptables boxes and reclaim a ton of usable IP space. Almost. :)
>
> Anyways, didn't mean to hijack the OP! Interested to see if Comcast is
> actually handing him a /29, or just 5 IPs out of a bigger subnet, and
> if they'll route that /29 to him.
>
> Nathan Eisenberg

Comcast allocated a /30 for my WAN interface and a /28 for my network use.
They are in different class C address spaces.

Gordon Russell
Clarke County IT


 I understand what you are trying to accomplish I think.  Just as a stupid
thought, could you simply setup virtual IP's for the addresses you are
trying to use and setup 1:1 Nat and forward them to the internal servers.  I
understand this means you will have to use nat.  You may be trying to avoid
this, but it seems like a much easier solution.  It also seems more
flexible.

Hope this helps,
Ryan



__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 6874 (20120210) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com


_______________________________________________
List mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list

Reply via email to