On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 10:56 AM, Jerome Herman wrote
>
>
> It is indeed a lot easier. Unfortunatly it cannot be used in this case.
> Basically it is an hotel that is already wired in CAT.6. We ant the clients
> to be able to connect through wire without resorting to routers or DSL
> modem, with ju
sticky/static ARP's, etc.
I don't mind, but probably off topic for this list.
- Original Message -
From: owner-freebsd-questi...@freebsd.org
To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org ;
nat...@vidican.com
Sent: Thu Oct 14 12:56:19 2010
Subject: Re: Is it a good idea to use DHCP for po
Le 14/10/2010 16:33, Nathan Vidican a écrit :
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Jerome Hermanwrote:
Le 13/10/2010 22:25, Elliot Finley a écrit :
we did this with DSL customers. But instead of using a unique gateway for
each Client, just use IP Unnumbered and proxy arp for your loo
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Jerome Herman wrote:
> Le 13/10/2010 22:25, Elliot Finley a écrit :
>
> we did this with DSL customers. But instead of using a unique gateway for
>> each Client, just use IP Unnumbered and proxy arp for your loopback
>> interface.
>>
>>
> I was about to say that
Le 13/10/2010 22:25, Elliot Finley a écrit :
we did this with DSL customers. But instead of using a unique gateway for
each Client, just use IP Unnumbered and proxy arp for your loopback
interface.
I was about to say that this solution seemed extremely sensitive to
spoofing. But I figured o
we did this with DSL customers. But instead of using a unique gateway for
each Client, just use IP Unnumbered and proxy arp for your loopback
interface.
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 9:02 AM, Jerome Herman wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Given the price (an tedious management) of layer 3 switches I was thinking
>
Hello,
Given the price (an tedious management) of layer 3 switches I was
thinking about using modified DHCP to distribute addresses with a /32
netmask (255.255.255.255)
The Idea : Create a cheap (and preferably not dirty) way to have client
isolation, without creating tons of vlan.
Pratict
