[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Bostjan Hojkar <bostjan dot hojkar at fov dot uni dash mb dot si>
 To:  "Bruce A. Mah" <bmah at acm dot org>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Bridge again :)
 Date:  Wed, 19 Nov 2003 07:43:41 +0100
>It's important to note that all of the server interfaces, plus the
>m0n0wall WAN port, are on the same IP subnet.  They all have identical
>subnet masks and default gateway settings (the default gateway is off
>this diagram, to the right).  This all works because of the bridging
>functionality.
>
>The m0n0wall LAN port has an address in RFC 1918 space.  Normally
>nothing is connected to it, except when I hook up a laptop to do some
>configuration changes.
>
I think i understand a little better now. I guess i was a bit confused
because i didn't read only m0n0wall's bridge funcionality but also bridge(4)
in freebsd and linux bridging. I made some assumptions how things should be
from there..

>Let me reiterate Manuel's comment:  It's pointless to connect the two
>sides of a filtering bridge to the same switch.  Whatever you're
>trying to do, that's almost certainly not the answer.
>
I'm not connecting TWO sides of bridge to the same switch. I never said
that, whoever got that idea - it's wrong. I'm using your scheme, only my
network behind "OPT1" is /25.
My problem was LAN, that i kept conected to same switch as OPT1 for the sake
of administering switch and checking logs from any computer behind firewall.

>I admit I am a little confused as to what you want to accomplish, but
>I hope this helps.
In two words: "bridged firewall". That's all. I usualy do it by hand and it
works, but right now i'm in need of webgui ;). From all the firewalls on PC
box i found and tryed, m0n0wall comes closest to this..

And it should be possible with only 2 interfaces so i don't see why bridging
LAN with WAN would be such a big problem.. .I'll go into that after i make
things work.

Regards, Hob