Grant Robinson wrote:
> On 5/8/06, Shaun Sutterfield <shaun at prointegrations dot com> wrote:
>> Grant Robinson wrote:
>> > What I have not tried is the bridging, but it sounds like one side of
>> > the bridge needs to not have an IP address, which is not really what I
>> > am looking for here.
>>
>> I think bridging *is* what you're looking for.  This is how I set it up
>> at one of my client's sites whose WAN IP was within the same subnet as
>> his LAN. (well, actually in his case it's OPT1, he uses NAT on his LAN)
>>
>> You are right that with bridging only one interface will have an IP, but
>> that just means M0n0 will use the same IP (the WAN IP) on both
>> interfaces.  Is there a particular reason you need M0n0 to have two IPs
>> in the same subnet?
> 
> But see, they are not in the same subnet.  They aren't even close. The 
> WAN IP address is 120.20.233.182 and the LAN IP address is
> 120.20.130.161.  The 120.20.130.160/27 subnet is being routed by the
> ISP to 120.20.233.182, and so the m0n0 box needs both IP addresses, as
> 120.20.130.161 will be used as the default gateway for all the boxes
> on the 120.20.130.160/27 subnet.  Does that make sense?

Ouch--my oops, I better let my brain wakeup more before reading and 
replying :-)

Kris's reply seems more relevant...

> -- 
> Grant Robinson
> jgrantr at gmail dot com
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> 


-- 
Shaun Sutterfield
Pro Integrations
P.O. Box 340568
Sacramento, CA 95834-0568
(916) 564-6282
shaun at prointegrations dot com