network brain bender

Steven Alligood steve at bluehost.com
Fri Nov 7 13:42:27 MST 2008


Andrew McNabb wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 11:07:12AM -0700, Hans Fugal wrote:
>   
>> Wouldn't that ruin the separation between the networks?
>>
>> Stuart, this way lies madness me thinks. Do I get geek points for
>> pointing that out?
>>     
>
> Yep.  Of course, madness kind of seemed like what Stuart was looking
> for.
>
>
>   
>> Why not just do the rational thing and use two similar but different
>> subnets, like 192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.1.0/24. Are you hardcoding IP
>> addresses in whatever it is you're testing?
>>     
>
> Building on your idea, you could have both networks think that they're
> 192.168.0.0, but have the server call one of them 192.168.0.0 and the
> other 192.168.1.0.  Then you could set iptables rules to mangle all
> incoming traffic on eth1 to be 192.168.1.0 and mangle outcoming traffic
> on eth1 to be 192.168.0.0.
>
>   
I agree with doing the rational thing.

Even if you could get such an illogical thing to work, you will forever 
have headaches and confusion from it.  Just setup two different subnets, 
and a DNS with views, then reference whatever you want by the same 
name.  Just thinking about the issues you will cause yourself with the 
other direction makes the bump on the back of my head itch with dread.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3254 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Url : http://plug.org/pipermail/plug/attachments/20081107/a6e22cc5/attachment.bin 


More information about the PLUG mailing list