192.168.1.40 is mach1; 192.168.1.41 and 192.168.2.1 are mach2. I see
that I srewed up in my first message, and put 192.168.1.40 as mach2's
eth0 IP instead of 192.168.1.41. If it weren't for typos, I'd have no
typing at all! :)
The problem is fixed now. When I went to bed last night, I shut dow
Hi Ben
Do you have the routing table for 192.168.1.41? The second thing both
mach1 and mach2 have the same ip address 192.168.1.40. My guess is mach2
is supposed to have 192.168.1.41.
You will need IP forwarding on all the boxes except mach4 as well.
david
On Sun, 20 Jan 2002, Ben Logan wrote
Yes. I didn't to begin with, but then turned it on. Still have the
same problem though.
Ben
On Sun, Jan 20, 2002 at 11:11:21PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Do you have IP fowarding turn on? if not turn it on. I have a DSL connection
> using ppp0 and the rest of my network is a 198.X.X.X.
Do you have IP fowarding turn on? if not turn it on. I have a DSL connection using ppp0 and the rest of my network is a 198.X.X.X. I used IP forwarding and squid for a proxy server. It works great,,, then I setup SNMP on my ppp0, eth0, and eth1 inferfaces so I can bench mark using MRTG.
Brian
I'm sure this is a very simple routing issue to someone. The
frustrating thing is that I had it figured out the other day, but then
my hard disk crashed today. Now I can't get it right again.
I have a home network of 4 computers. mach1-mach4. It is a 10Base-T
ethernet LAN, and I don't have a
Jan 5, at 15:40, Peter Peltonen sent through the Star Gate:
>Glen Lee Edwards wrote:
>
>> 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 Linu
David Brett wrote:
> The router has two routes out of it. one to the internet and the second to
> your network. Any route it does not know about it will drop or send to
> the default route, if it exists. Since the internet is a larger network
> the default is the internet and your network not v
comments below
david
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001, Peter Peltonen wrote:
> David Brett wrote:
> >
> > The possible locations for the problems are:
> >
> > Linux box is not routing properly.
>
> It should be:
>
> # /sbin/route -n
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask
Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> Are you sure you enabled IP forwarding on the router? Do you have an entry
> net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1
> in /etc/sysctl.conf?
My /etc/sysctl.conf:
--snip--
# Enables packet forwarding
net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1
# Enables source route verification
net.ipv4.conf.all.rp_
David Brett wrote:
>
> The possible locations for the problems are:
>
> Linux box is not routing properly.
It should be:
# /sbin/route -n
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface
192.168.0.253 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH
Hi Peter,
> I've finally got my ISP to configure the CISCO router. They made "a
> a static route for xxx.xx.xxx.128/25 and configured xxx.xx.xxx.253 as a
> forwarding router".
> But no go. Still the same situation: client can ping linux and vice versa, but
> client cannot ping t
The possible locations for the problems are:
Linux box is not routing properly.
The cisco router is not routing properly. It needs the following
statements to work
ip route x.x.x.190 255.255.255.128 x.x.x.253
ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 ip of ISP
ISP has missconfigured its end
The easiest way t
Here we go again...
I've finally got my ISP to configure the CISCO router. They made "a
a static route for xxx.xx.xxx.128/25 and configured xxx.xx.xxx.253 as a
forwarding router". The network looks like this at the moment:
ISP
|
|
HDSL
|
|
CISCO
eth0 ip xxx.xx.xxx.254, mask /??
|
|
eth0
Glen Lee Edwards wrote:
> 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 ad
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
>
>Unfortunate
Hi Peter,
> 'Why don't you just "steal" the net252/m252 from the net192/m128? That way you
> would have only two networks xxx.xx.xxx.128/25 and xxx.xx.xxx.252./30. The
> networks will go to eachother's territory but that shouldn't matter because
> routing happens always using the
Hi Peter,
> I could specify _two_ ip addresses for eth0. One being private and
> talking with the CISCO and another being a public address belonging to the
> net128/m128 and doing the masquerading.
This wouldn't solve anything, since the Cisco would still have to listen and
ro
Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> If you'ld use a public IP for eth0 on the router the router itself couldn't
> be talking to the outside world, so masquerading would fail. I am not sure if
> plain routing would work, although I think this might work if the Cisco
> supports routing local addresses
Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
> Well, I guess you could get yourself a few more usable addresses by adding
> 240/248 and 248/252. And in your first setup you didn't use so many subnets.
> Why not fuse 192/240 + 208/240 = 192/224?
That seems reasonable, yes.
Another suggestion I got was this:
Hi Peter,
> 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?
If you'ld use a pub
Hi everybody,
and thanks for your time that you've put to help me. The problem I'm having
obiviously is that the CISCO router is not aware of the Linux router I've put
there. I've asked my ISP to configure the CISCO router. I've asked them for a
small additional network between the CISCO and the
; > |
> > > |
> > > Linux
> > >
> > > And there is only one ethernet port in the router.
> >
> > I have understood this is your setup.
>
> Well I guess I didn't. Thought you meant your linux router by the CISCO and
> the Linux cl
t; > Linux
> >
> > And there is only one ethernet port in the router.
>
> I have understood this is your setup.
Well I guess I didn't. Thought you meant your linux router by the CISCO and
the Linux client by Linux. It seems your simple routing problem is getting
even
Please supply the routing table of the cisco router and the ip adresses of
the networks.
The following have to exist for your network to work.
The ip addresses on your network (past the cisco router) has to be public
ip addresses your ISP knows about. If not the router has to do ip address
tran
Hi Peter,
The fact that the routing by your ISP is probably your problem can be checked
by using a single subnet (xxx.xxx.xxx.128/255.255.255.128) for a test setup.
Bye,
Leonard.
___
Hi Peter,
Read the post by Brat.
> I wasn't clear enought about my setup. As you can see from my previous post,
> the configuration actually is like this:
>
> HDSL
> |
> |
> CISCO
> |
> |
> Linux
>
> And there is only one ethernet port in the router.
I have understood th
Hi David,
> Bret's explaination is close. The basic rule is if the router has a route for
> the the IP address is will route it. This includes default route. The other
> thing that will mess up routing is incorrect subnetting. This will can have
> very strange effect on routin
Bret's explaination is close. The basic rule is if the router has a route
for the the IP address is will route it. This includes default route.
The other thing that will mess up routing is incorrect subnetting. This
will can have very strange effect on routing.
My guess without looking into a
Peter Peltonen wrote:
> Bret Hughes wrote:
>
> > I have not really looked at the subneting but are you sure your isp is sending
> > packets to you router, or are they merely sending them in that direction from
> > theirs? I believe they need to know that all packets destined for your
>
> I belie
Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Can you plug multiple machines into the HDSL?
>
> HDSL .254 --- eth0 .129 Linux-client
> |
> |
> eth0 .253
> Linux-router
> eth1 .158
>
> Where does the HDSL send the packets? To the router or to every machine?
I wasn't clea
Kiran Kumar M wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> You have to forward the packets by using ipchains.
>
> I think it will solve your problem.
I should be able to get the routing going without using ipchains, shouldn't I?
That's what I want to accomplish before firing up my firewall...
Peter
Bret Hughes wrote:
> I have not really looked at the subneting but are you sure your isp is sending
> packets to you router, or are they merely sending them in that direction from
> theirs? I believe they need to know that all packets destined for your
I believe this is the problem, yes. My ac
Hi Peter,
Can you plug multiple machines into the HDSL?
HDSL .254 --- eth0 .129 Linux-client
|
|
eth0 .253
Linux-router
eth1 .158
Where does the HDSL send the packets? To the router or to every machine?
Bye,
Hi Peter, Paul and Bret,
> The way you have things setup the default gateway for your clients is
> outside the mask you have set for the client so that the default gateway is
> unreachable.
No, 190 ([10]10) is inside the mask for 129 ([10]01).
I guess Bret might be righ
Peter,
You have to forward the packets by using ipchains.
I think it will solve your problem.
Kiran
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000, Bret Hughes wrote:
> Peter Peltonen wrote:
>
> > Okay, I've updated my subnet plan to look like this:
> >
> > net namenetmaskip
> >
> > 128 dmz1.2
Peter Peltonen wrote:
> Okay, I've updated my subnet plan to look like this:
>
> net namenetmaskip
>
> 128 dmz1.224 .129 - .158
> 224 router .224 .225 - .224
>
> I've changed the network settings accordint to this plan. I made .158 the new
> dmz gateway. S
Okay, I've updated my subnet plan to look like this:
net namenetmaskip
.128 dmz1.224 .129 - .158
.224 router .224 .225 - .224
I've changed the network settings accordint to this plan. I made .158 the new
dmz gateway. So my network looks like this:
HD
Thanks for your quick reply!
Paul Anderson wrote:
>
> 1. The best network calculator on the web is:
>
> http://www.agt.net/public/sparkman/netcalc.htm
That looks like a handy tool.
A question: the calculator gives me only options for 2 or 4 networks. Is it
then impossible to do 3 networks
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Peter Peltonen
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2000 8:45 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: simple routing problem
WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO
-
I'm trying to connect a network with p
WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO
-
I'm trying to connect a network with public ip-addresses to the Internet
via a Linux (Red Hat 6.2) router.
THE PROBLEM
---
No routing is happening. I can ping from the router both the Internet and
my own net, but can not ping from my own net
40 matches
Mail list logo
