comp.os.linux.networking

Moe Trin wrote:
> NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
> reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.

Finding one is harder than you would believe. But now I have one that
should work.

>> All camera interfaces have the same static ip 192.168.1.1.
>
> This sentence does not make sense.

What I'm trying to say is that eth{0,2,3,4,5} have all been configured
to use 192.168.1.1 as their address. As far as I know this should cause
no problems.

>> I could, of course, solve the problem by giving the cameras static IP
>> addresses, but this isn't feasible in my application.
>
> Now you see one of the disadvantages of DHCP. Easy to set up on the
> client end - a real bastard to do on the server.

I have faced the disadvantages, but I have no access to the cameras
until they have been plugged in. There is no way to assign a static ip
based on anything.

> You are comparing apples and oranges - a switch is working at the OSI
> Layer 2 (Datalink) level moving packets based on hardware addresses,
> while the computer is working at the Layer 3 (Network) level moving
> packets based on IP addresses.

Thanks for this. Another reply cast some more insight into this. It
seems that I can configure Linux to "route" packets at layer 2 as well.

Regards,
Topi