This is perhaps a weird question, but I'm in a weird situation where I want to route traffic from network A to network B via (the address of B-router in the A network). The A-router doesn't have a configuration interface, I can't touch it. But I can do anything with B-router.

So I was thinking perhaps I could achieve "artificial" routing by inserting the addresses allocated within the B network into A-router's ARP table, pointing to B-router's mac-address.
It should be enough for B-router to periodically send out ARP broadcasts on the A network for each of it's entries in the B network (all pointing to it's own A-network mac address).
A-router's ARP table would then look something like: -> [some device on A network] -> [another device on A network] -> [B's address on A network] -> [B's address on A network] -> [B's address on A network] -> [B's address on A network] -> [another device on A network]

My belief is if A-router allows these entries in it's ARP table, then the lower-level switch logic within that router should direct the packets to B-router's interface. Before they go up the chain in A-router and it finds out it doesn't know what to do with them.

I realize this is incredibly hacky, but this is a one-off situation where I'm unfortunately left with no other choice.

So could this work, or is there any reason it wouldn't?

  • 1
    Can you just replace the "A-router" completely and route all traffic via your You wouldn't need to touch anything in the configuration of "A-router", just unplug it from the network directly and plug it into B-router, and then set up addresses/routing/NAT/proxy-ARP as appropriate. Or if that is not an option and A-router just routes everything to its own default gateway, plug the uplink into B-router and make that the default GW, then handle it there.
    – TooTea
    Commented Mar 24 at 16:02
  • Is NATting all traffic from on B-router to appear as feasible for your setup?
    – ErikF
    Commented Mar 24 at 17:07
  • @TooTea Can't replace, A-router gets internet from coax and has no configuration interfaces at all - landlord can't be bothered, I'm in a situation where my port forwarding is done by cron job in router B allocating ports to itself via UPnP. It's rough out here.
    – TrisT
    Commented Mar 24 at 20:09
  • @ErikF Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your question, but I think that describes what I'm already doing. The .2 network is behind nat, anything being accessed in the .1 network just sees as the source. This is necessary as A-router is incredibly unreliable, plus I make use of functionalities like static IP allocations, split-horizon DNS and hostname resolution which are unavailable in A-router.
    – TrisT
    Commented Mar 24 at 20:15
  • Is this some kind of overlay network, where both IP blocks are on the same Layer2 network ?
    – Criggie
    Commented Mar 25 at 0:58

3 Answers 3


"It doesn't work like that."

Nothing in network A will even attempt to find network B via layer-2 (ARP), because it's not a local ("on-link") network. They will forward that traffic according to their route table -- without a more specific route ( via the default route applies. You could attempt to "poison" the arp tables, but (a) they won't be consulted, and (b) any sane host will ignore such martians.

Your options are:

  • add a route to the router for network A (which you said is not available to you)
  • add a route on every node in network A
  • send an ICMP redirect for network B hosts (but modern security is to ignore redirects)
  • 4. connect network B upstream of network A (in the direction its default route points) Commented Mar 25 at 0:01
  • Network A is likely the edge of their network. "Router A" sounds suspiciously like a "home network" where routes can't be added. (or at least a network TrisT doesn't manage.)
    – Ricky
    Commented Mar 25 at 2:29

You seem to be talking about proxy ARP: the source (or previous hop) thinks that an address is on link (this might be a problem for you). On-link addresses are resolved by ARP, so an ARP request is sent.

When the gateway/router to that address then replies with its own MAC address, the source sends the packet to that MAC address, just like it would using its routing table to find a gateway. On the gateway, the packet is routed by its IP address, so all is working well.

However, proxy ARP is a bad crutch and should be avoided. The reasonable method would be to replace A-router with a more capable model. Alternatively, add a route to via to each node in

It should be enough for B-router to periodically send out ARP broadcasts on the A network for each of it's entries in the B network

I'm afraid gratuitous ARP is only half the solution. A-router needs to think that it's directly connected to the B-network in order to attempt ARP resolution. You'll likely need to manipulate its network mask, assuming A-network and B-network can be supernetted. In your example, you'd need to shorten the network prefix from /24 to /22.

Can ARP tables store addresses for other networks?

That would be useless. MAC addresses are only meaningful within the network segment that they are connected to. As described above, it may be useful though to insert a gateway's MAC address for an IP address that looks like it's connected to the current subnet but isn't really.


I'm not 100% sure if it works, but as @Ricky says, you could add separate routes for each network element in network A.

For Linux it works like this:

Put custom static routes in /etc/network/interfaces:

auto eth0
iface eth0 inet static
      address 192.168.1.XX
      up route add -net netmask gw

where eth0 is of course the network interface, that's connected to your LAN A and XX is the IP of your Linux network element in LAN A. The Link will give you further Information.

You can get your current routes using: route -n

For Windows it works like this:

route -p add destination_network MASK subnet_mask gateway_ip metric_cost
route -p add MASK 0

Don't forget the -p flag, as it makes the route persistent. You can get your current routes with route print

While this is certainly not the most elegant solution, it could be an acceptable workaround if you have absolutely no access to Router A and other tinkering might not want to work either.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.