In Cisco-speak that's known as an unnumbered interface. It means that for all routing purposes you simply assign the interface name as the gateway. Using a numbered interface gives you more flexibility and lets you do some fancy tricks with packet mangling and what not. The only problem with numbered interfaces is if you're using a routing protocol like BGP, IGRP or RIP it can propagate those numbered links as actual routes across your network. That may or may not be bad depending on what numbers you've assigned.
The only other disadvantage is that the gateway machines will announce themselves on the remote network as their numbered links and not their LAN addresses. That can be corrected with some creative SNAT rules. My advice, though, is to quote my grandmother's old maxim in that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Todd A. Jacobs Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2005 2:56 PM To: Reno Linux Users Group Subject: [RLUG] tap0 addresses Okay, I'm actually not expecting an answer for this one, since it's a little outside the scope of what people on this list do. But here goes. I'm working with UML, and am trying to figure out the best way to handle routing. Right now, I've got tap0 and eth0 on different subnets (and obviously different IPs), with eth0 running NAT for the tap0 network. However, I've seen lots of people assigning the same IP to tap0 as to eth0, and I'm curious to know if anyone can identify the (dis)advantages of either method. At the moment, it's working as configured, but that doesn't mean it's right, or that it's optimal. Advice welcomed. -- Find my Techno-Geek Journal at http://www.codegnome.org/geeklog/ _______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug _______________________________________________ RLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.rlug.org/mailman/listinfo/rlug
