We had this setup on a cisco 2611 previously with the same interface
configuration, so yes this is setup correctly by the ISP.
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 09:55, Chris Buechler wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 16:50:06 +0800, Jordan T. <jordan at blue dash ferret dot com dot au> wrote:
> > From exec.php, you could issue "/sbin/ifconfig <int> <address> netmask
> > <netmask> alias" but im not sure that it would route the whole subnet as
> > i want. You can even throw this in the config to come up at boot by
> > using <shellcmd>/sbin/ifconfig bge0 X.X.X.X netmask 255.255.255.X
> > alias</shellcmd> inside the <system> block. an example in my case would
> > be "ifconfig vr0 X.X.165.53 netmask 255.255.255.252 alias", im hoping it
> > will add a route for the rest of the subnet too, and enable routing of
> > other IP's through to the LAN.
> You'd either have to use an additional interface or a VLAN. You could
> put in the ifconfig alias but that's not recommended and not
> supported. I'm not sure how or if outbound NAT would behave with
> that. You'll definitely need advanced outbound NAT if you're going to
> try that.
> Additionally, your ISP will need a route to that .165.53/30 net
> pointing to your m0n0wall WAN IP. My guess is that's not the way it's
> setup, and they might not be willing to do so. They're probably
> expecting both networks to be on the WAN side, in which case you'd
> need two firewalls.
> Are they actually assigning you a /30 subnet, or those usable IP's
> within a bigger subnet? i.e. if you were putting a system directly on
> the internet with one of those IP's, what would it use as a default
> gateway? Would you need a router on that subnet to use them?