From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Opperisano Subject: Re: Two NICS with same IP and same client IP Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 17:29:32 -0500 Message-ID: <20050202222932.GA1803@bender.817west.com> References: <186AC876521E0F46BDE77079A6567FD0F0DD97@la-ncc-ms1nsabb.losangeles.afspc.ds.af.mil> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <186AC876521E0F46BDE77079A6567FD0F0DD97@la-ncc-ms1nsabb.losangeles.afspc.ds.af.mil> List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Errors-To: netfilter-bounces@lists.netfilter.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: netfilter@lists.netfilter.org On Wed, Feb 02, 2005 at 02:22:41PM -0800, Hudson Delbert J Contr 61 CS/SCBN wrote: > jason, > > sorry, but your gonna' hear this anyway...but its not negative.. > i just wanna know why? > > okay...here is what i'm sure will think is a dumb question. > > why not make life simple for all concerned [servers, clients and routers, too...] > > re-numbering the subnets...or just one and --- voila! problem gone !!!! > > this might be too simplistic for this list (he! he! he!) but lets say... > > eth0@server = 192.168.100.0/24 > eth0@client = 192.168.100.1/24 > > eth1@server = 172.16.1.0/24 > eth1@client = 162.16.1.1/24 > > or whatever...whats the problem? > > i think also the statement below may be have some validity > if this is as easy as i think it is. > > where's the difficiulty. > > complex is bad. > simple is good. i agree with you one hundred thousand gabillion (is that a glavin?) percent. judging from the posts in this thread--i believe properly configuring IP is an unacceptable solution for the OP. -j -- "Ah, good ol' trustworthy beer. My love for you will never die." --The Simpsons