Re: 2 gateways possible (sorry for wrap)
I can't really see what's happening with this information, could you
answer the following questions?
How far does a traceroute come?
What are the route-tables (specially the one where traceroute stops) ?
Ron Rademaker
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000, behapy wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I'd like to ask about something below. Would please tell me the
> answer?
>
>
> 81.200.1.2 ----- 81.200.1.1 -----
> 210.xx.xx.xx ----- to the internet
> . 81.200.2.1
> (something firewall)
> internet .
> .
> .
> 81.200.2.200
> (PCs) (routers)
> (internet gateway)
>
>
>
>
> 51.202.3.250
>
> .
>
> .
>
> .
> +------------------
> 51.202.3.2 (servers)
> |
> |
> 51.200.1.2 ----- 51.200.1.1 -----------
> 49.100.1.1 ----- 49.100.1.2
> . 51.200.2.1
> 49.100.2.1 .
> LAN .
> 51.202.3.1 .
>
> . .
> .
>
> 51.200.5.200
> 49.100.2.200
> (PCs) (routers)
> (routers) (servers)
>
> I've 2 NICs. eth0 81.200.1.200(gw81.200.1.1, mask 255.255.255.0) and
> eth1 51.200.1.251(no gateway, mask 255.0.0.0). So I can login to
> 51.202.3.2 by telnet. And I can also login to ftp.kde.org by an ftp
> program.
>
> But if I login to 49.100.2.200, I can not connect to the server.
> Because the server 49.100.2.200 is not the same network address to my
> eth1. So I changed eth1 as 51.200.1.251(gw51.200.1.1, mask
> 255.255.255.0) and it is not worked. I don't know why.
>
> If I login to 49.100.2.200 then, eth0 will send packets to its gateway
> 81.200.1.1 and eth1 also will send packets to its gateway 51.200.1.1
> then eth0 will reply something timeout or response if there is
> 49.100.2.200 on the internet. Anyhow eth1 absoultly receive the
> response from 49.100.2.200 I think. 51.200.1.251 -> request is not its
> network address. SO -> 51.200.1.1 -> 49.100.2.1 (something?) ->
> 49.100.2.200 ??? Am I wrong?
>
> the PC eth0 and eth1 have is win95 and 49.100.2.200 is linux. Is there
> any solution to solve the problem?
>
> many many thanks to the responsers,
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
>
Reply to: