Peter,
>Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
>> So, let's try again. What about the configuration of the CISCO? Guess you'll
>> have to configure this router to add an extra hop to the Linux router. No need
>> to contact your ISP over this if they route all your traffic over the CISCO('s
>
>Unfortunately I don't have access to the CISCO box.
What do you mean by this? The router isn't physically located in your
home, or your ISP won't give you the password to get into it? If it's the
latter, unless they configured it before sending it to you and won't give
you the password, you should be able to access it.
>I told my ISP that I could
>configure the CISCO for my needs (if they don't give me the extra network). In
>that case I guess all that has to be done with the CISCO is the following:
>
>
>CISCO
>eth0 ip254/m252, static route xxx.xx.xxx.128/m128 gw ip253
> |
> |
>eth0 ip253/m252
>LINUX
>eth1 routes net128/m192, net192/m240, net208/m240, net224/m240
>
>
>Because of the network between CISCO and LINUX I "loose" net240/m240 (ip's
>241-254).
>
>If someone figures out a better subnetting scheme I'm open to suggestions...
I was using the above with IP masquerading. Eth0 on the Cisco was set to
my static IP address, but aliased to 10.0.0.1. I set eth0 on the Linux
router to 10.0.0.2 (didn't use pump or dhcp in the Linux box), then set
eth1 in the Linux router (computer) to a LAN address as you've shown
above. If I'm reading your schematic right, it looks like you have 4
different subnets running off of eth1. Is that correct?
I had some difficulty getting the above to work. As I changed the netmask
and IP addresses on the LAN so I could subnet, linuxconf didn't delete the
old routes, even though it added in the new ones. My routing table was a
real mess! I finally had to go in and modify the routing by hand.
>I've been suggested to use a private network between CISCO and LINUX which
>would be otherwise ok but I'm planning to add a masqueraded network to LINUX
>and if I've undestood correctly in that case I need to have a public ip
>address for eth0?
You do. I have an 8 IP subnet, but only 5 addresses are usable; one is
the broadcast address, one the network address, and one the router
address.
There's no reason why you can't do the above as you wish if you set up
routing and ip masquerading properly without going the private network
route unless that's what you want to do.
Glen
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
