Interesting, so does this mean that the nic has two ip's assigned, ie 10.x.x.x and the ip assigned by pptp when the connection is made?
Sorry to seam so stupid about this, I run a LRP (5 static ip's) with 3 nic's and am very happy with it, but am always looking to expand my knowledge ;-) Sorry for reposting this to the list, but currently the reverse dns lookup for my mail serve points to my ISP, and you have my ISP in your spam filter. I'm on the phone with them now to get this fixed, gotta love verison, NOT! John On Thursday 14 February 2002 12:17, you wrote: > all workstations use gateway address of the server machine that initiates > the connection. > that way all traffic goes through box that doing the masq and since you > must use 10.x.x.x address scheme on all your network, those internal ip's > is not routable outside. that way, your internal net is not exposed to the > internet and all is ok :-)))) > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Cichy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <debian-user@lists.debian.org> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 6:35 PM > Subject: Re: 486 SX (masquerading DSL connection) > > > On Thursday 14 February 2002 11:27, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote: > > > > I have potato on a 486SX, 25MHz, 300MB hard drive, 8MB RAM. It tends > > > > to drag because it swaps a lot, but otherwise is fully functional. I > > > > had it masquerading the dial-up connection with no problems. The > > > > reason I don't have it masquerading the DSL connection is I don't > > > > want to buy a second ISA NIC. (I actually have a spare USB NIC, but > > > > no USB for ISA-based machines) > > > > > > If your DSL is anything like mine, you don't have to. I have all my > > > machines and my modem on the same hub, and use pptp to connect my > > ancient > > > > 486 laptop to the 'net, and then use masquerading, all over the same > > local > > > > network. I have no idea if this works with pppoe, since that's not how > > my > > > > adsl system is supposed to work. > > > > I have a question on this setup. Which machine is doing the the masq? It > > seems to me that if all the machines are connected to the same hub as the > > modem, arn't all machines 'exposed' to the internet through the dsl > > modem? What is your default route? The reason for the second nic (my > > understanding) > > > is that all machines must connect through a single masq machine, so all > > traffic flows to nic_1 gets masq'd then goes to the internet through > > nic_2. > > > I am not disputing what you are doing, but your statement has thrown my > > understanding for a 'loop'. > > > > John > > > > > > -- > > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
