Am 06.05.2011 23:17, schrieb Erik Nørgaard:
Hi:
This is a generic question about may, should and must:
I have the following setup:
192.168.28/24
+---+
|.196 |.1
SRVGW- RN
|.28 |.1
+---+
10.225.162/24
The server, SRV, has
about your ENVIRONMENTAL responsibility.
--- On Sun, 5/8/11, Lokadamus lokada...@gmx.de wrote:
From: Lokadamus lokada...@gmx.de
Subject: Re: Link and network level in the tcp/ip stack
To: Erik Nørgaard norga...@locolomo.org
Cc: questi...@freebsd.org
Received: Sunday, May 8, 2011, 12:22 AM
it
to 192.168.28.1.
Thanks.
__
Before printing, think about your ENVIRONMENTAL responsibility.
--- On Sun, 5/8/11, Arun p...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: Arun p...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: Link and network level in the tcp/ip stack
To: Erik Nørgaard
On 7/5/11 4:12 PM, Arun wrote:
Just add default route at your node 10.225.162.28, and make the default
GW for this route as 192.168.28.0/24 or the connected interface. Your
SRV node should pass it to its default gw 192.168.28.1 which should take
care of forwarding it to the destination RN. If
On 5/7/2011 6:41 PM, Erik Nørgaard wrote:
So the question is which behaviour is correct, recommended or accepted?
Stripping the link layer and reply according to the network layer, or
keeping the link layer?
This is the way it in every TCP/IP stack out there.
The routing decision for the
Hi:
This is a generic question about may, should and must:
I have the following setup:
192.168.28/24
+---+
|.196 |.1
SRV GW- RN
|.28|.1
+---+
10.225.162/24
The server, SRV, has default gateway set to 192.168.28.1, no
