At Friday, 2 January 2004, Debian User <[EMAIL PROTECTED] com> wrote:
>At Friday, 2 January 2004, Antony Gelberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 10:46:06AM -0500, Debian User wrote: >>> in a previous post, i asked this question but not sure if an answer >>> was found ... >>> >>> >>> i am trying to set up a network in my office at work. >>> >>> +---------------+ +---------------+ >>> | 192.168.1.100 |-----| 192.168.1.1 | >>> | 255.255.255.0 | | 255.255.255.0 | +---------------+ >>> +---------------+ | 10.20.1.158 |---| 10.20.4.48 | >>> | 255.255.0.0 | | 255.255.0.0 | >>> +---------------+ +---------------+ >>> >>> the 192.168.1.100 machine can ping the 192.168.1.1 and 10.20.1.158 >>> interface but not the 10.20.4.48 interface. the 10.20.1.158 interface > >>> can ping the 10.20.4.48 interface. >>> >>> my routing table is as follows: >>> >>> dest gateway genmask flags metric ref use iface >>> 192.186.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 u 0 0 0 eth1 >>> 10.20.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 u 0 0 0 eth0 >>> default 10.20.4.48 0.0.0.0 ug 0 0 0 eth0 >>> >>> >>> >>> any suggestions as to what i am doing wrong? >> >>Not turning on IP routing? cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward. If it's >>0, routing is off. >> >>I suppose TDW for this is to set ip_forward=1 in /etc/network/options. >>What this does is effectively echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward >> >>A > >right ... forgot about that. when i ping 10.20.4.48 from 192.168. >1.100, the requests time out. this tells me that there is a route >to the host ... if this matters. anyway, i am still unable to reach >10.20.4.48 from 192.168.1.100. > >anything else? > > because the 10.20.x.x network is a private network, don't i need masquerading? i am thinking this b/c the 192.168.1.100 machine does not flag 'no route to host' so it must know where to send the packets. the gateway (10.20.4.48) must not be sending the packets to the 192.168.x.x net correct? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
