On Oct 29, 2006, at 10:46 PM, Jim Toro wrote:
> You say set the LAN side to that address so I guess all the PC's would
> then need to think THEIR gateways would be 192.168.100.0 ?
> Would all of the LAN side boxes now need to be set for /23 as they are
> now /24 as is the router.
If you use a m0n0wall in filtered bridge mode.
Cisco router 126.96.36.199/23
m0n0 bridge (WAN) 188.8.131.52/23 (184.108.40.206 is gateway address)
Clients off OPT interface with 1.2.0.x/23 and 1.2.1.x/23 addresses,
gateway is 220.127.116.11 (18.104.22.168 works also?)
Disclaimer, I have never tried anything like this, but the network
'math' seems correct.
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, davidg at yowl dot org wrote:
>> Hey Jim,
>> Question:- Do your Class C's form a contiguous address range or
>> are they seperate? If the address ranges are adjacent they you
>> could perhaps look at configuring the LAN side of things as a
>> single /23 network.
>> eg 192.168.100.x & 192.168.101.x could be configured as
>> 192.168.100.0/23 which would give you a single logical subnet for
>> which you could configure a single gateway etc. This would require
>> all of the hosts on that subnet to have the same view of the
>> world, possibly not a particularly trivial undertaking, but in
>> networking terms it's probably the most elegant.
>> Splitting the network and installing an additional NIC in the
>> m0n0wall would be an OK solution, but then you would be routing
>> LAN-LAN traffic through your firewall, probably better to avoid
>> this if you can help it. If your switch supports VLAN tagging then
>> this would be a similar alternative (with the same downside).
>> Or, would it be an option to put the firewall outside the router,
>> let the router handle all the LAN traffic for you and just hand
>> off external traffic to the m0n0 for routing to the Internet?
>> Hope this helps some.
> 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