Harry Putnam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By slight of hand I will try to redirect any interested parties to a
> new, hopefully more on topic thread:
>
>Subject: init script puzzle
I neglected to add it would be on the valhalla list since it concerns
only 7.3
Matthew Boeckman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I still kind of wonder why that route statment in your ifcfg file was
> being ignored... did you notice anything unusual in the dmesg output?
> you could dmesg|grep route or the like to see.
>
> List: Sorry for the OT discussion. Hopefully it may ser
Harry Putnam wrote:
> Matthew Boeckman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
>>I could be terribly wrong here, but my thinking is that the GW
>>statement in eth1 on m6 is being ignored (maybe check dmesg). I have
>>never assigned a static route in linux that did not show up in netstat
>
>
> It tur
Matthew Boeckman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I could be terribly wrong here, but my thinking is that the GW
> statement in eth1 on m6 is being ignored (maybe check dmesg). I have
> never assigned a static route in linux that did not show up in netstat
It turns out your suggested experiment sho
Matthew Boeckman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> There was no particular good reason for the setup below but this is
>> where I am running into what I described:
>>
>
> I'm dying to ask anyway! What are you achieving/trying to do with M6
> that it cohabitates both networks?
I knew you wouldn't b
> I'm confusing things here, but not on purpose. I mean that I have
> assigned a gateway to both eth0 and eth1 in this way:
easy to get confused in all this :)
>
> These files are on machine6 in diagram below:
> cat /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0:
> USERCTL='no'
> NETMASK='255.2
Matthew Boeckman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm not entirely sure what you are asking.
>
>> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window
>> irtt Iface
>> 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U40 0 0 eth1
>> 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.2
I'm not entirely sure what you are asking.
>
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface
> 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U40 0 0 eth1
> 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U40 0 0 eth0
> 127.0.0.
Matthew Boeckman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think the best answer is 'man route'
>
> route add -net 192.168.2.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev eth1
> route add -net 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev eth0
>
Matthew, I posted a similar answer in this thread. Although I think
yours is clearer.
I think the best answer is 'man route'
route add -net 192.168.2.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev eth1
route add -net 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev eth0
A good friend once described the best way to understand routing: "be the
packet". If your .1.x clients are trying to get to .2.1, and their
For many people, running routed is not necessary. Many times, all one needs is
a static default route. For example, 192.168.1.0/24 is via eth1 and
everything else on the planet is via eth0. In any case, you might want to get
things working with static routes before debugging routed.
Ensure b
Adrian Hunt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Without even addressing the firewall aspect at this
> point, I'm simply trying to take one machine with 2
> network interfaces (192.168.1.1 and 192.168.2.1) and
> convince it to route IP traffice such that 192.168.2.X
> can ping, telnet to, print to, etc.
Hi all,
I've read a few TFM's ;-) but can't seem to figure it
out on my own. I have a very simple routing need, for
the time being, and yet I can't seem to figure it out.
Without even addressing the firewall aspect at this
point, I'm simply trying to take one machine with 2
network interfaces (
13 matches
Mail list logo
