[solved]Re: ethernet routing
At Friday, 2 January 2004, Debian User <debian-user@zerocrossings.
com> wrote:
>At Friday, 2 January 2004, Debian User <debian-user@zerocrossings.
>com> wrote:
>
>>At Friday, 2 January 2004, Antony Gelberg <antony@antgel.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 10:46:06AM -0500, Debian User wrote:
>>>> in a previous post, i asked this question but not sure if an
answer
>>>> was found ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> i am trying to set up a network in my office at work.
>>>>
>>>> +---------------+ +---------------+
>>>> | 192.168.1.100 |-----| 192.168.1.1 |
>>>> | 255.255.255.0 | | 255.255.255.0 | +---------------+
>>>> +---------------+ | 10.20.1.158 |---| 10.20.4.48 |
>>>> | 255.255.0.0 | | 255.255.0.0 |
>>>> +---------------+ +---------------+
>>>>
>>>> the 192.168.1.100 machine can ping the 192.168.1.1 and 10.20.1.158
>>>> interface but not the 10.20.4.48 interface. the 10.20.1.158
interface
>
>>
>>>> can ping the 10.20.4.48 interface.
>>>>
>>>> my routing table is as follows:
>>>>
>>>> dest gateway genmask flags metric ref use iface
>>>> 192.186.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 u 0 0 0 eth1
>>>> 10.20.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 u 0 0 0 eth0
>>>> default 10.20.4.48 0.0.0.0 ug 0 0 0 eth0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> any suggestions as to what i am doing wrong?
>>>
>>>Not turning on IP routing? cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward.
>If it's
>>>0, routing is off.
>>>
>>>I suppose TDW for this is to set ip_forward=1 in /etc/network/options.
>>>What this does is effectively echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
>>>
>>>A
>>
>>right ... forgot about that. when i ping 10.20.4.48 from 192.168.
>>1.100, the requests time out. this tells me that there is a route
>>to the host ... if this matters. anyway, i am still unable to reach
>>10.20.4.48 from 192.168.1.100.
>>
>>anything else?
>>
>>
>
>because the 10.20.x.x network is a private network, don't i need
>masquerading? i am thinking this b/c the 192.168.1.100 machine does
>not flag 'no route to host' so it must know where to send the packets.
>the gateway (10.20.4.48) must not be sending the packets to the
>192.168.x.x net correct?
>
routing table is/was fine ... turned out to be iptable rules that
were not masking the 192.168.1.100 address from the 10.20.x.x private
net.
Reply to: