| 1 |
Adam Carter <adamcarter3 <at> gmail.com> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > BTW, can I assign IP addresses on the same subnet to the 2 wireless |
| 5 |
> > interfaces in my system if one of them connects to the WAN and the |
| 6 |
> > other to the LAN? |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Yes and no. (see below). |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
> You probably don't want to do that. It will give you two connected |
| 11 |
> routes for the subnet, and only the one with the better metric will be |
| 12 |
> used, so you wont be able to communicate with hosts on the other |
| 13 |
> interface. You could probably setup bridging, but IMO it would almost |
| 14 |
> certainly be better to just use different subnets. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
YES; Depending on how your "subnet" and what netmask(s) you use. Routinely |
| 17 |
a given class C (for example) is broken down to more smaller |
| 18 |
address spaces (subnets) and not the x.x.x.0-255 range of a |
| 19 |
typical class C addressing scheme. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Avoid asymmetrical routing: |
| 22 |
https://my.stonesoft.com/support/document.do?docid=1377 |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
You need to read up on this and understand things before getting |
| 25 |
fancy on subnets. Router jocks do this all day, every day. Cisco |
| 26 |
use to have some fabulous docs on the net, but I do not think |
| 27 |
they are available any more without a support contract. |
| 28 |
I.E. typically folks subnet on the class C boundary |
| 29 |
(for example; 192.168.44.x) as it is cleaner and easier |
| 30 |
to configure. But if you break down a Class C to smaller subnets, |
| 31 |
actually they are different subnets, so the real answer is |
| 32 |
NO, unless you want routing instability or want to use ugly hacks, |
| 33 |
or handle by the port/service with something like netfilter/bridging/etc. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
There are tools on the net to help you figure out how to break down |
| 36 |
a typical Class C network, to various smaller subnets. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
hth, |
| 40 |
James |
Archives