It's not a bridge because i can SSH to any of the IPs of the Linux box (192.168.1.121 ou 192.168.1.122) from the local network (and only one of the NICs in the box is directly connected no the LAN). From what i know, bridges have no IP addresses. Or am i wrong?
-------------------------- Elaconta.com webmaster -------------------------- Em 7/26/2006, "Spruell, Darren-Perot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escreveu: >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Now, thing is, the Linux firewall has two NICs: >> >> NIC 1: 192.168.1.121 >> NIC 2: 192.168.1.122 >> >> The two NICs on the Linux box are configured with 192.168.1.121 and >> 192.168.1.122, both interfaces on the same subnet. >> 192.168.1.121 acesses >> the company router (192.168.1.120) and 192.168.1.122 acesses >> the company >> LAN (192.168.1.0/24) >> >From what i've googled, this shouldn't even be possible, >> everything is >> on the same subnet. Regardless, it works great > >Makes you wonder if the Linux box isn't configured as a bridge anyway (the >only way I can see it would work in that configuration because as a L3 >device it seems unlikely to function right.) Certainly information from the >routing table and interface configuration would be useful if someone wanted >to stomach it. > >Although one wonders why you wouldn't do the "right" thing and reconfigure >it. Why perpetuate bad practice if you don't have to? Schedule some down >time one night, jot down an implementation plan, and roll with it. Improve >things. > >Usually I find that when someone balks at giving you information about how >they set something up, it's because they want to hide how bad they did it. >You've probably got a bad setup that has managed to squeak by because of >some hack he's put in. Root that problem out, set it up according to best >practice, and put yourself in a better place to move forward. > >Or maybe it's just bridging and has IPs and it's not broke. I don't know. > >My 2 cents. > >DS
