Re: Dual Interface Routing Question
I have one more scenario where I think are issues without multiple routes.
When I'm at home, I connect to my office network using a VPN Connection
something like:
rrs@geeKISSexy:~ $ route -n
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
202.X.112.XXX 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth2
192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth2
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 tun0
Now, If my understanding is correct, the default route ends to be through tun0
and all data, except for my internal network 192.168.1.1/24, has to be tunneled
through tun0.
What is the path when I hit for www.debian.org in my browser ?
Does it route through my corporate VPN Network ?
Thanks,
Ritesh
Ritesh Raj Sarraf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have two interfaces, eth0 and eth1
>
> Both are configured in dhcp mode and both connect to the internet.
>
> I also have enabled a tap0 interface which I use to allow my Virtual Machines
> to talk through.
>
> I'm trying to figure out a solution where by I can nat eth0 and configure the
> routing table to allow all traffic from tap0 to pass through eth0 and the rest
> of the traffic to pass through eth1.
>
> I'm currently looking at:
> http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html
> and it looks like the way to follow. But this example is assuming static IP
> addresses, I guess.
>
> One option I see is to take out the IP addresses for eth0 and eth1 when they
> get it from the dhcp server and then follow the above doc to setup the
> routing.
>
> Just wanted to confirm:
> a) I'm using debian which uses ifupdown. Will setting the routing tables be
> used or the ifupdown scripts use their own routing tables.
> b) Has anyone tried similar solution or has any simpler way of doing this.
>
> Thanks,
> Ritesh
--
Ritesh Raj Sarraf
RESEARCHUT - http://www.researchut.com
"Necessity is the mother of invention."
"Stealing logic from one person is plagiarism, stealing from many is research."
"The great are those who achieve the impossible, the petty are those who
cannot - rrs"
Reply to: