On 12/2/05, jared r r spiegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 05:36:24PM +0200, turha turha wrote: > > Hi! > > > > I'm trying to find out if it's possible to get multiple IP's using DHCP > to a > > single NIC. > > without knowing what the specifics of the DHCP-situation on the ISP's > end is, perhaps a safe assumption is that you're going to need > different MACs to be the source of the DHCPDISCOVERs/DHCPREQUESTs
I'm pretty sure, that at least if I use two different MAC's I'd get two different IP's, I might have tested it, but am not sure though. a *very* simple solution that will probably Just Work (assuming > there is nothing on ISP-side that restricts you to just 1 IP, and > assuming > your dhclient box can accomodate it) would be to get a little > hub/switch and use two external NICs in the dhclient box. > connect each NIC and the CPE to the switch and run dhclient for > both ifaces. IMO, that's a bit crappy solution, I did think of that, but since from the software standpoint what I'm trying to find, at least to my knowledge, is doable, I'll try to make it work, without 2 external NIC's. Of course the box only has 2 NIC's, I guess I could buy a third, since they aren't that expensive, but I'd rather do it with just the two, less cables and all ;-) > Also, related to this, OBSD doesn't create an additional virtual interface > > when using aliases for an IP, is it possible to create an extra > interface ? > > > > The reason for this is so that in pf.conf I could use the interface name > in > > parenthesis, so when the DHCP changes one of the IP's pf configuration > > updates automatically. > > you can still use the interface name in parens regardless of the > virtual interface whatnot.. perhaps you mean something like, if > there was a physical NIC, 'fxp0' and two virtual interfaces: "fxp0.0" > and > "fxp0.1" you could filter based on simply "(fxp0)" or "(fxp)"... > i thought you could use a macro for ifspec, but either you can't or i'm > testing wrong: > > ---- > > [/home/jrrs] $ echo "X=\"fxp0\"\npass on \$X all" | pfctl -nvf- > X = "fxp0" > pass on fxp0 all > [/home/jrrs] $ echo "X=\"fxp0 lo0\"\npass on \$X all" | pfctl -nvf- > X = "fxp0 lo0" > stdin:2: syntax error > > ---- What I'd need would be like having IF fxp0, with two or more virtual interfaces, and then using "(fxp0.0)" and "(fxp0.1)" kinda stuff in pf.conf, and this is very related to the last question. What I meant by the reasoning for not having virtual interfaces was that what's the upside of aliases in contrast to virtual interfaces. As far as I know, virtual interfaces in this situation would save the day, ie. I could give different MAC's to different virtual interfaces and then use dhclient on all the interfaces (virtual or otherwise) I wanted to, and use the interface names in parenthesis in pf.conf (again virtual or otherwise). if you had two NICs of the same family (err, driver) from the above > suggestion, > you could satisfy that with, ieg: > > ---- > pass on fxp all > ---- > > provided the only fxp(4)s you had were the externals (eg, if you have > fxp0, fxp1 for external and fxp2 for internal, that may not be desired, > however you could put the 'fxp' rules at the top and then specific fxp2 > treatment at the bottom) > > > Does anybody know the reasoning behind not creating a virtual interface > ? > > it's not linux? > > in seriousness, no. other than seeing that virtual interfaces are not > created for physical interfaces who exist (maybe they are created > with extant physical interfaces, eg trunk(4)), but there's no fxp0.0stuff > that i've come across. > > -- > > jared > > [ openbsd 3.8 GENERIC ( oct 30 ) // i386 ] > > Thanks for the suggestions though.
