From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <9ab217670908211459n796751ecpa28ab4adcc423f04@mail.gmail.com> References: <9ab217670908211407x366d789an6340209e97b65d39@mail.gmail.com> <9ab217670908211458k2394d5bfq6d7f803d3a7c699f@mail.gmail.com> <9ab217670908211459n796751ecpa28ab4adcc423f04@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 15:14:50 -0700 Message-ID: From: Christopher Nielsen To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Issues with 2 networks, fs server, and namespaces Topicbox-Message-UUID: 50fc5282-ead5-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Certainly. No problem. Yes, just bind #l1 to /net, assign it an IP addr on that private network, and put a route in the routing table for good measure. Though that last step may not be entirely necessary. -Chris On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 14:59, Devon H. O'Dell wrote: > 2009/8/21 Devon H. O'Dell : >> 2009/8/21 Christopher Nielsen : >>> You don't need a second IP stack. You can run both interfaces on the >>> same IP stack and routing will just work. That's how I did it when I >>> had a similar setup. > > Wait, I misread your explanation. Would you care to explain more about > that? Is that just binding '#l1' into /net? > > --dho > > -- Christopher Nielsen "They who can give up essential liberty for temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin