Re: Route Nat dead. Does anybody going to support it?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Monday 22 November 2004 23:55, Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 09:14:08PM +0300, Peter Volkov Alexandrovich wrote:
> Oh, in that case I would bind the real IP address to the end machine on
> the LAN and enable proxy arp on the router. Then the router answers
> ARPs for that IP and forwards the packets. You don't even need NAT in
> that situation (if I'm understanding you correctly).

It's bad, when users want to communicate with each other using microsotf's 
explorer.

When computer wants to announce itself, it needs to send broadcast message. 
But no one recieves it, as he is the only windows computer in this subnet 
(with real ip address).

And I don't want to setup samba on router to enable crossnetwork browsing.

-- 

______________________________________

Volkov Peter, <pvolkov@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Moscow State University, Phys. Dep.
______________________________________

NO ePATENTS, eSIGN now on:
http://petition.eurolinux.org
and maybe this helps...

Linux 2.4.26-gentoo-r9 i686
Mobile Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 1.60GHz
-
: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Netdev]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux 802.1Q VLAN]     [Linux Wireless]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Linux for Hams]     [Netfilter]     [Git]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News and Information]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux PCI]     [Linux Admin]     [Samba]

  Powered by Linux