On 2010-Jun-14 13:17:06 -0700, Kurt Buff wrote:
>We'll be simulating installations of our software and hardware for
>customer installations that have WANs between sites, with several
>complementary applications, including a multicast app that is critical
>to the whole effort. While it's a bit much
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 05:41, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 06/12/10 23:22, Kurt Buff wrote:
>
>> Again - they'll be putting up to 200 busy machines on each subnet. It
>> seems reasonable to limit the broadcast domains with VLANs.
>
> I know that everyone begins to talk about "limiting the broadcast
> d
On 06/12/10 23:22, Kurt Buff wrote:
> Again - they'll be putting up to 200 busy machines on each subnet. It
> seems reasonable to limit the broadcast domains with VLANs.
I know that everyone begins to talk about "limiting the broadcast
domains" when talking about VLANs sooner or later but I have
On Thu, Jun 10, 2010 at 07:02, Ivan Voras wrote:
> On 06/09/10 22:35, Kurt Buff wrote:
>> All,
>> Now, however, the subnet on fxp4 is going to have an HP 2610 switch
>> attached to it, and they want to hang multiple subnets from that
>> interface.
>
> ... which doesn't necessarily translate to VL
On 06/09/10 22:35, Kurt Buff wrote:
> All,
>
> I have in place a router that I built with FreeBSD (currently it's an
> i386 build - 7.0-STABLE FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE #1: Mon Jul 28 18:59:13 PDT
> 2008) on a whitebox with 3 dual-port NICs.
>
> the relevant data from /etc/rc.conf:
>
> defaultrout
All,
I have in place a router that I built with FreeBSD (currently it's an
i386 build - 7.0-STABLE FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE #1: Mon Jul 28 18:59:13 PDT
2008) on a whitebox with 3 dual-port NICs.
the relevant data from /etc/rc.conf:
defaultrouter="192.168.27.1"
gateway_enable="YES"
hostn
