two interfaces one subnet

Tue May 12 16:06:06 UTC 2009

On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:12 AM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net>wrote:

> On May 11, 2009, at 11:43 PM, Ben Scott wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Patrick W. Gilmore <patrick at ianai.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>
>  Do you even read your own posts?  Specifically:
>>>
>>> On May 11, 2009, at 5:40 PM, Ben Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>  Either way, if
>>>> the packet *from* X was addressed *to* B but the response comes back
>>>> from *A*, then host X is going to drop the packet as
>>>> invalid/irrelevant/etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The receiving host X does not care (or even know) if A and B are in the
>>> same
>>> prefix.
>>>
>>
>>  Look again.  A and B are *IP addresses*, not hosts.
>>
>
> Sometimes people agree with me, sometimes they don't, and sometimes I agree
> with them.  But I've yet to have someone claim to be arguing against me
> while proving my point.
>
> Anyone else want to unconfused Ben?  I obviously cannot.

Really nothing clever about this at all in application or practicality.

host> cat /etc/services | grep nntp
nntp            119/tcp         readnews untp   # USENET News Transfer
Protocol

host1> cat /etc/hosts | grep news

127.0.0.1 localhost
192.168.0.100 clue-store
192.168.0.100 news-out
192.168.0.101 news-in

If this didn't work, you'd suppose that virtual machines and IP aliasing
wouldn't work either.  Unless routes facing the world on the device are
"tweaked", this should work fine and be reliable (if implemented cluefully).

Am I not getting it?

Best,

-M<

-- 
Martin Hannigan                               martin at theicelandguy.com
p: +16178216079
Power, Network, and Costs Consulting for Iceland Datacenters and Occupants