On Tuesday, 26.07.2005 at 22:38 +1200, Adam Bogacki wrote: > >>>>>INET_IP="192.168.0.1" > >>>>>INET_IFACE="eth0" > >>>>>INET_BROADCAST="192.168.0.100" > >>>>> > >>>>>LAN_IP="192.168.0.2" > >>>>>LAN_IP_RANGE="192.168.0.0/16" > >>>>>LAN_IFACE="eth1" > >>> > >>>Well, that looks wrong for a start. The IP addresses and ranges on your > >>>INET interface and LAN interface overlap, which is Bad and Wrong. The > >>>broadcast address is also spurious. > >>> > >>>What IP addresses and net-masks are actually allocated to eth0 and eth1? > >>>Perhaps show us the output of 'ifconfig'? > >> > >>Output of 'ifconfig' below. > > > >Adam, please reply on list, do not CC people on list messages. > > > >>Tux:~# ifconfig > >>eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:CC:D9:E2:48 > >> inet addr:203.79.110.81 Bcast:203.79.110.255 > >>Mask:255.255.255.0 > > > > > >Well - there you are. Above is your eth0 IP address. You should > >correct your script to include 203.79.110.81 as your eth0 address and, > >as seen below, eth1 is 192.168.0.1 ... > > > >>[...] > >> > >>eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:CC:D9:C7:6F > >> inet addr:192.168.0.1 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 > >>[...] > > Apologies, I've picked up bad habits from other lists. > > Iptables now allows me to connect to the internet and do debian things > and I feel a bit more secure. > > Do > > >INET_BROADCAST="192.168.0.100" > > and > > >LAN_IP_RANGE="192.168.0.0/16" > > still make sense ? No - the INET interface has IP 203.79.110.81 with broadcast 203.79.110.255 according to your own ifconfig; and the LAN range should probalby be 192.168.0.0/24 rather than 192.168.0.0/16, since it's netmask is 255.255.255.0 ... Dave. -- Please don't CC me on list messages! ... Dave Ewart - davee@sungate.co.uk - jabber: davee@jabber.org All email from me is now digitally signed, key from http://www.sungate.co.uk/ Fingerprint: AEC5 9360 0A35 7F66 66E9 82E4 9E10 6769 CD28 DA92
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature