From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <05a04a8a2697913ad8bef3dc5a9cb5b6@vitanuova.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Mail exchanger
From: C H Forsyth <forsyth@vitanuova.com>
Date: Mon,  2 Aug 2004 16:49:52 +0100
In-Reply-To: <20040802173550.D9108@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d0b8c9a4-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> No, the machine is not intended the be a gateway, but it does
> straddle two disjoint networks, which are also spanned by the
> firewall and the proxy server.  I want it to be able to service
> traffic from both networks, as transparently as possible, with
> largely the same services running on both interfaces/IP stacks.

if so, i wondered why you didn't just add the extra
interface as an extra interface on the existing IP stack, in which
case you don't need to mess with net.alt.  for instance,
	ip/ipconfig ether /net/ether1 <addresses>
binds a new device interface to the existing IP stack,
with the address parameters you give.  you might
also possibly set iprouting on the interfaces
if you want the server to do that.