Eric Sisler wrote:
> Beats the h*ll out of me. Partly to provide "security" of some kind
> (although I don't know what), or so I'm told.
Ewww. That's not security. Packet sniffers work just as well
regardless of your IP, and anyone who's a security threat will know
enough to change his IP manually. Somebody's been hoodwinked into
believing that since the machines can't talk directly to each other
*under their configuration* that it is secure. Balderdash, and the
person who spreads such lies (and weak security) should be exposed and
hanged by his toes (Was that over the top???)
> Partly because they needed
> to divide up their class B across several WAN links and partly because I
> think whoever setup their network originally didn't *exactly* know what
> they were doing.
Physical separation would help more than anything else.
> The aliased IP provides only DHCP - nothing else. I *think* when all is
> said and done the box will provide DHCP and DNS only.
In that case, then the Linux box _will_ require the aliased IP.
Although, a separate NIC, and physically separate subnets works better
than that.
> That makes two of us. I may have to experiment with that if I can convince
> them it's in their best interest to find out.
Let me know if you find out for sure.
> >It's a lot goofy. And it's inefficient. If they're using 10Mbit,
> >they're going to run out of bandwidth fast.
>
> Ok, I'll go with a lot goofy. ;-) Fortunately for them, they have an ATM
> backbone.
I meant out of bandwidth internally. 10MBit doesn't go very far these
days.
MSG
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
