|The contents of the IP forwarding algorithm page were merged into IP routing. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2015-10-17)|
Both bridging and IP Forwarding allow XP to act as a router between subnets. You would use this if you have two different network segments and you need to have traffic from both available. This is particularly useful if the two network segments are of different media types.
The network bridge allows you to connect LAN segments by selecting the appropriate network connection icons and clicking Bridge Connections. Similar buttons allow you to enable the bridge and add connections to it. The network bridge manages your LAN segments and creates a single subnet for the entire network. There is no configuration required, and you do not need purchase additional hardware such as routers or bridges. IP addressing, address allocation, and name resolution is highly simplified in a single subnet IP network.
The network bridge can create connections between different types of network media. In a traditional network, if you are using mixed media types you need a separate subnet for each type of media, and packet forwarding is required between each one of the network's multiple subnets. Packet forwarding is required because different protocols are used for different types of media. Network Bridge automates the configuration that is required in order to forward information from one type of media to another.
If you just need to enable Netbios traffic, you can use the XP native support for Bridging. For TCP/IP you need to make a registry entry to enable IP forwarding.
Set this key to 1 to enable routing, or 0 to disable (disabled is the default): HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Services\Tcpip\Parameters\IPEnableRouter
See: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/treeview/default.asp?url=/technet/columns/cableguy/cg0102.asp victorv (Vendor) 23 Jun 03 8:51 Suppose you have 2 NETs in your company with no physical connection
NET A: net=192.168.1.0 NM=255.255.255.0 DG=192.168.1.251
NET B: net=192.168.2.0 NM=255.255.255.0 DG=192.168.2.251
192.168.1.251 and 192.168.2.251 are 2 routers one for each network
If you ping a PC of NET B from one of the NET A you see timeout.
The best way to understand this is to think your Pc with 2 nics (also if it is not mandatory).
you wire nic 1 on Lan A and give IpAd = 192.168.1.100 you wire nic 2 on Lan B and give IpAd = 192.168.2.100
Now the 2 network are linked by your PC : from your PC you can ping address of both net, but other PC of NET A cannot still see PC of NET B.
In one PC of net A, you can add a another gateway putting the adress of your PC (192.168.1.100)
In one PC of net B, you can add a another gateway and you can put the 2nd adress of your PC (192.168.2.100)
If you activate IP-Forwarding, (probably you have a NT4) your PC can acts as router between networks.
Contact me for more details Ajnas 9944855619
- Better now with IP forwarding algorithm redirecting here. Still there's an issue with IP forwarding vs. Routing. I will direct some merge banners here and see if we can get a discussion going. ~Kvng (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
- @Kvng: I consider IP forwarding to include bridging, Network Address Translation (NAT), Port address translation (PAT), and to a lesser extent, encapsulation, all of which are not part of IP routing. There are also hybrids such as Cisco Express Forwarding where a device can behave like a router but implements it via switching and bridging.
- I agree with you that the IP forwarding article does a poor job of explaining the generic concept of forwarding plus switching and distinguishing them from routing, which is a form of forwarding. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- After reviewing some books (listed below) I'm thinking the best tactic would be to either rename this article to "IP routing" or to keep the name as "IP forwarding" and to make it clear it's the same thing as IP routing. RFC 1354, 4292, and 4292 are titled "IP Forwarding Table MIB". However, in reading the history outlined in that chain of RFCs the IP forwarding table replaced the IP routing table and has additional fields. The IP forwarding table was itself replaced by the IP version-independent CIDR Route Table. Thus we are back to using the words "IP routing".
- The existing routing article is mostly general purpose and has very little Internet Protocol content. While Internet Protocol is now dominant the routing article should mention some of the other routable network protocols such as Chaosnet, X.25, XNS (and the IPX plus Banyan Vines derivatives), DECnet, ATM, and IBM's SNA plus APPN. I think Token ring could also be routed. Technically AppleTalk could be routed too.
- The books I checked for references to "forwarding" were:
- Internetworking with TCP/IP: Volume I: Principles, Protocols, and Architecture by Douglas E. Comer does not have an entry for forwarding in the glossary. The index only has "Forwarding, mail 435".
- Computer Networks (I have the 2nd edition handy but it's up to the 5th edition) by Andrew S. Tanenbaum does not have an entry for forwarding in index.
- Routing in the Internet by Christian Huitema does not have an entry for forwarding in index.
- Within Cisco routers the term "IP forwarding" comes up from time to time as they have an "IP forwarding" table that speeds up the forwarding of packets as though they were being routed. The processing of packets that pass through a Cisco device is handled by what what they call the "forwarding plane" in both their switches and routers.
- --Marc Kupper|talk 07:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
- The books I checked for references to "forwarding" were:
- Thanks, Marc Kupper for taking a deeper look at this. It looks like your suggestion is to let Routing cover routing for all networks and for this article to cover routing for IP networks. If that were all there were to it, I don't think I would support having separate articles. However, it looks to me as though Routing is potentially a WP:SUMMARY article for the process of moving packets through a routed network and the Routing protocol topics for the exchange of information about how to deliver packets. I'm not sure exactly what to do but in the end, but I do support your proposal to rename this article IP routing as a first step. ~Kvng (talk) 15:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- While IP forwarding appears in principle the same as IP routing, it seems the term is mostly used in the scope of a single host when the decision is to be made of whether to forward packets onto a set of interfaces or not, i.e. whether an interface should participate in the higher level rules of routing within the host. So one needs to decide the scope of this article first, before any renaming. The article Routing should probably cover the subject at the highest level, in terms of routing principles and philosophies, and various types of routing mechanisms. IP routing should cover specifically the principles and issues of routing Internet Protocol packets. If IP forwarding is still needed as a topic, its scope needs to be clearly defined. I tend to think it would not be needed. Kbrose (talk) 16:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think IP forwarding should be merged to packet forwarding, as their definitions are too similar. By definition, IP forwarding is a process used to determine which path a packet can be sent; packet forwarding is the relaying of packets from one network segment to another by nodes in a computer network. In addition, routing describes BOTH definitions, and in practice, merging IP forwarding and packet forwarding will prevent from mixing up of topics. UU (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 22 October 2016
- @Kbrose: I'm not watching this page, but I happened to see your strikeout of the closing statement, which is not exactly good practice. I should note that, in my personal observation, after WT Computing was pinged, the following support !vote was uncountered for about a week. Do you still dispute the page renaming? If so, I can revert the move and re-open the request... On the other hand, I see you began some content revisions already. I'm available to assist technically if there's a need, thanks — Andy W. (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
After reviewing and some edit work, I found that the old article title was actually more appropriate to the then-content of the article. But the topic of IP forwarding should be discussed in the broader context of IP routing not vice-versa. As much of the original content was more or less plagiarized from a single source, it is time to redirect the focus of the article to the wider subject matter and distinguish it more prominently from its cousins Routing and Packet forwarding. Kbrose (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)