In Livingston's defense. Their most populated term server will only take
up 61 addresses (PM-3 with E1). And more than 255 hosts on one 10 Mbps
half-duplex ethernet is probably pushing it as far as traffic and
collisions go. If the addresses are for virtual connections like a web
server, then make that server handle the routing to its own individual
Class C. (Thats what we do). We have one class C on the internal net
and a route to the web server's class C. And another class C for each
8 PM-2e 30's or 4 PM-3's. If your web server also talks RIP and/or OSPF
to advertise its route, you don't have to do much to get your portmasters
to listen to the route from it. It may be better to do this or static
route so that your local web traffic doesn't have to make a trip to the
default router before getting forwarded to your web machine. I recommend
gated vice routed on local hosts. Routed only listens to RIP and on
some platforms is not as stable.
On Wed, 18 Dec 1996, Brian K. Jackson wrote:
> At 12:46 PM 12/17/96 +0000, you wrote:
> >I have recently added a class C address to a network that already has
> >a Class C address. Both class C addresses operate on the same
> >physical network. (%95 of the addresses are virtual domains that are
> >not very busy, so it isn't too crowded.. yet!)
> >Anyhow, my name server is in the 205.206.213.0 network and I want to
> >move all my PMs to the 206.75.140.0 network. Will the portmaster
> >have any difficulties communicating with the other class c addresses
> >in the network? Do I have to add any routing info in the PM or will
> >just a default gateway to my cisco router suffice?
> >I use routed on unix hosts and have set all PMs to have routing on.
> >
> >Any feedback would be appreciated.
> >
> >Pat
> I played with this for several days. I wanted to get the pm to look up two
> sets of noncontigious class c sets as local (arp cache lookups). However
> there does not seem to be a way to add more then one sub/net route for the
> local interface to the pm routing table. This means that in order for a pm
> to utilize two (or more) class c sets on one physical cable plant, there
> must be a router on that plant capable of recognizing the two address sets.
> Which in turn means that for every packet which crosses the class c
> boundries you get double the packets. One packet addressed to the router,
> the router then sees that the address is local and transmits the same packet
> over the same physical cable plant with the new destination address. I did
> not try adding host routes for one set of the class c. I assume this will
> work, but I know I don't want to add all those routes or maintain em.