sub-net routing question

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 06:54:30PM -0400, marthter wrote:
> Okay, that was my misunderstanding then, in thinking that was enough
> for the router that could deliver it to be local, not that the final
> destination needed to be local.

No, things generally don't broadcast.  Too inefficient.

It can be done using 'proxy arp'.  To do that you would need router 1,
2 and 3 to proxy arp for the devices behind them.  It's rather error
prone and my experience with it isn't very good, although there are cases
for ppp servers and such where proxy arp can be pretty handy to make
a collection of remote ppp users appear local by proxying arp requests
locally for those IPs.

> I see, so the 192.168.0.0/16 network/netmask might be used in
> routing RULES somewhere higher up, but no devices would actually
> have it in their interface definition?

Right.  By splitting it, you are pretty much deciding that's how those
subnets are.  You can look at them as an aggregat collection from
elsewhere that you want to talk about, but the combined network does
not actually exist anywhere as a network.

-- 
Len Sorensen
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists