I don't know what his IP requirements are, so I wasn't making any recommendations - the 192.168's were just examples. I was just assuming that his ISP would be assigning him 2 networks, one for each site. The size and scope of that is between him and his provider. That way he wouldn't be required to do NAT. And if he for some reason needs 64k IP's for these 2 small offices, he can setup the Linux box to do NAT for those machines. Adam Maloney Systems Administrator Sihope Communications On Sat, 13 Mar 2004, Ken Fuchs wrote: > Adam Maloney wrote: > > >Host site router: > >ip route 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0 private-t1-link-ip > >! The client site has 192.168.1.0/24 > > I would use split the 10.0.0.0 network between the two sites for their > private network. Maybe 10.40.0.0 for one site and 10.60.0.0. This > would allow close to 64K IPs for each site. Sparse IPs and logical IP > division based on many factors is easier with 2 class B private networks > than with 2 class C private networks. > > Just my trivial two bits ... > > Sincerely, > > Ken Fuchs <kfuchs at winternet.com> > > _______________________________________________ > TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org > https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list > _______________________________________________ TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota http://www.mn-linux.org tclug-list at mn-linux.org https://mailman.real-time.com/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list