On Thursday 14 February 2002 14:48, dman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 07:31:08PM +0100, Matijs van Zuijlen wrote: > ... > > I too thought that putting the DSL modem on the hub (actually a switch > in my case) wasn't the Right Way. > > | The 486 that connects to the internet also does the masquearading. All > | traffic flow to eth0, and gets masq'd, but then goes to the internet > | through ppp0, which is in fact a ppp connection using pptp (which talks > | to the modem via the very same eth0). To the rest of the network the > | modem is just 10.0.0.138. Only the 486 is 'exposed'. I hope this clears > | things up. > > Ahh, you have a "separate" PPP interface. > > My service is simply an ethernet card with a cable (crossover, IIRC) > connected to the DSL modem. I use DHCP to get an IP and it's golden. > (I used to have to "submit" a web form to "login" to my ISP (which I > automated with a not-very-robust script) but they removed that > annoyance!) > > I don't think it would work very well if any other machine on the > subnet uses DHCP to obtain an address because then my "server" _and_ > the ISP would both get the broadcast request, but I only pay for 1 IP. > It would probably work if there was a way to make the switch transfer > data to the DSL modem _only_ from the gateway machine (and then only > some of it!).
The 3com 3300 XM switch allows me to 'VLAN' the 24 ports into seperate (upto 24) LAN's and allows you to set a port as a crossover, in this case it would it would work, but at $800 US, it is probably not cost effective for general users. John
