Passing Interface Name to Event Script
Glenn.Satchell at uniq.com.au
Wed Nov 18 01:42:47 UTC 2009
>Subject: RE: Passing Interface Name to Event Script
>Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2009 10:06:51 -0800
>From: "Rick Solotke" <RSolotke at olympus-cta.com>
>>In that case, they'll struggle to work on any normal network - if
>>their network stacks are that broken, send then back and refuse to
>>accept them until they aren't broken ! ANY network switch will
>>forward all broadcast traffic, plus any traffic for MACs it doesn't
>>have a table entry for, to all ports - that's how they work, and the
>>Linux bridge code is no different in that respect.
>Yes, you are correct that they will not work on a normal network.
>They're not intended to. This is a closed setup with only my router
>machine and the devices directly connected to it.
>>And of course, if you use a hub (yes they still exist and have their
>>uses) then each device sees ALL traffic on the network.
>I realized they still exist, but didn't realize they still have their
hee hee, I still have some in my stash - handy for snooping traffic to
a host without mirroring a switch port.
>Thanks again for your continued help.
Just a thought, and it may not work due to other limitations so feel
free to discard it.
What if you set up separate subnets on each interface?
Then the dhcpd subnet allocation would work automatically without the
host routes. This would also stop other devices broadcast traffic, and
on the whole would simplify the networking I think. The subnets would
only need to cater for a very small number of hosts (like a /30). Give
each device a static route pointing back to the router interface...
More information about the dhcp-users