Kevin Mark wrote:
i ended up loading the iptables modules ... guess they were not loaded by default. i spent some time llisting the forwarding rules and it works. when i pinged from 192.168.1.100 to an address on 10.20.x.x, there was not a report of _no route to host_. by this, i figured that the routing table was good enough.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?Hi, first do: echo 'ip_forward=yes' > /etc/network/options as root. this turns on ip forwarding. This allow packects to be sent to the next computer and beyond. My info says that 192.168.1.100 can only send to a host on its network -- any thing 192.168.1.x. But you set the default gateway to 10.20.x.x which it can not get to. Also, I ususally add a '-host' entry to the routing table. so, 'route add default gw 192.168.1.1' fixes the route on host1 then on the gateway1 machine: 'route add default gw 10.20.4.48' to help packets go to gateway2 if needed. (and of course do the ip_forward thing) -Kev
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
