[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

RE: Multiple Network Gateways


>> In here you have some duplicate information that is not needed. In the eth0
>> section the netmask together with the ip-address of
>> automaticaly defines the network and broadcast address you give in the next
>> lines. You can leave them out.

> They are added by the Debian installer, not me. But yep, you are right.


> auto eth1
> iface eth1 inet static
>       address
>       netmask
> all of my traffic will be routed through eth1. But the
> thing I don't understand here is that: Say I typed "ping".
> How will it know that it will need to use as a gateway to

If that is what you want then you have created an impossible combination of network adresses.
The 192.168.100.* addresses are ALL on the same network segment, that is what the netmask is telling Linux. So it is impossible to have a 192.168.100.x address routed via another 192.168.100.x address. 
I have looked once more at your original drawing a I do not see where is located in your network. It should be in the same segment as the reyiz eth1 interface and the pampa eth3 interface. If it is not then the address is wrong.

If pampa has another network connected to it, like (netmask and you want all trafic for routed via pampa then the eth1 section on reyiz becomes:

auto eth1
iface eth1 inet static
        post-up ip route add via
        down    ip route del via

In that case don't forget to tell pampa where to reach the other networks with the proper routing Lines.

>> You also have some dns lines in that interfaces file. As far as I know that is
>> not alowed and those lines should be in the /etc/resolv.conf file.

> Yep, /etc/resolv.conf solves the issue in a static manner, but the dns-*
> parameters I used in interfaces(8) are provided by the resolvconf
> package.

Ok, read somethings about that package. Did not know it existed. I have no need for it and a normal 'man interfaces' or 'info interfaces' on my systems does not mention this at all, which is why I thought there was something wrong.


Reply to: