> Assuming the wireless driver is written correctly, a wireless interface
> should appear no different from an ethernet or PPP or SLIP interface, as
> far as masq is concerned. The fact that you are bridging using wireless
> media, rather than simply another ethernet link, is beside the point.
Yes... I was hoping someone knew of a card that had worked under Linux,
ie ne2000 compatible.
> > The last time I tried to bridge and masquerade failed, I was told by
> > Alan Cox that the bridging code wasn't quite up to par at the time.
> Me, I prefer to separate the subnets, and set them up so that they know
> how to route to each other (using route tables). Masq can work very
> well with this setup. I also find it easier to understand and maintain.
> That way, only traffic that's specifically being routed between the two
> networks will cross the channel between them. It's efficient.
Yes, normally I'd do it that way (here at work my configuration has 4 nics
on the FW). However, in this situation at home, one ethernet segment is
desired. At first glance, routing is not as simple as it seems, since the
firewall will route to the other box, which then must route again to get
to the hosts in the adjoining building:
192.168.100.0 192.168.2.0 192.168.3.0
-------------[FW]-------Wireless------[box2]-----everyone else
> > Any comments appreciated, especially those having to do with wireless
> > support in Linux.
>
> Wireless support will probably be your biggest stumbling block. I have
> no idea what's happening in that field.
I would hope that I could find a wireless solution that is ne2000
compatible.
Sean
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Walberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://come.to/the_dark_side
_______________________________________________
Masq maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://tiffany.indyramp.com/mailman/listinfo/masq
Admin requests can be handled by web (above) or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
