I'm setting up a linux router to fit in the topology below:
This is straight IP addresses, I'm using NAT addresses to protect the
innocent. Please note that this box does not do/need to do any NAT or MASQ
Upstream linux router internal network
10.1.1.1/30 eth0 10.1.1.2/30
255.255.255.252 eth1 10.1.5.1/27 10.1.5.2-30
eth1:0 10.1.6.1/28
10.1.6.2-14
I have enabled packet forwarding, and my routing table looks like this:
destination gateway genmask iface
10.1.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.252 eth0
10.1.5.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 eth1
10.1.6.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.240 eth1
0.0.0.0 10.1.1.1 0.0.0.0 eth0
Now, whenever I try to add a route statement the way i _think_ it should
be added, I get "Network Unreachable". When I add them reverse from what I
think, route doesn't complain, but stuff still doesn't work. For example
route add -net 10.1.5.0 netmask 255.255.255.224 gw 10.1.5.1 dev eth0
(associating a route to 10.1.5.0 with gateway 10.1.5.1 on eth0, so that
packets it receives bound for that network are passed to eth1 !)
gives me: SIOCADDRT: Network is unreachable.
However if I do it as I have seen described in some howtow's:
route add -net 10.1.5.0 netmask 255.255.255.224 gw 10.1.1.2
route does not complain, but i cannot ping eth0 from eth1 or vice versa
with a destination host unreachable!
I guess my question is: Am I over-complexifying this? With forwarding
enabled, and the proper subnets defined on each interface, will the kernel
just say "oh, yeah that network is on eth0 or that network is on eth1" and
pass it on? If not, what am I completely misunderstanding about route's
syntax?
Thanks-
Matthew
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?subject=unsubscribe
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
