Hi, On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:23:53 +0100 "Daniel Pielmeier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > No, that's (usually) correct. But in the route excerpt you've cited > > above (please post "route -n" next time!) the route for "localhost" was > > set to "dev eth0". Also, the subnet was a /24 one, instead of the > > usual /8 for localhost. So there's some inconsistency between that file > > and the routes. The /etc/hosts you've shown looks good, please post > > dnsmasq's config. > > Here are the files you have requested! > > route -n on router > > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface > 88.67.16.1 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 > 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 > 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo > 0.0.0.0 88.67.16.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0 Ah, OK, so *this* is fine. The route for eth0 is correct. So it's just the name resolving on the router that returns "localhost" when being asked for the hostname for 192.168.0.1. Since all of this isn't about name resolving, we probably can even leave out that dnsmasq thingy. But your config is essentially this: > interface=eth0 > dhcp-range=192.168.0.1,192.168.0.255,72h If this is supposed to work, chose another beginning of that range, at least 192.168.0.2. But I think dnsmasq is even clever enough not to issue its own address to clients. I'll write a separate post about the firewalling issues in a moment. -hwh -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
