On 12 Aug 2000 11:14:50 +0200, Ramin Motakef wrote: [...] >is the routing on the host/guest machines correct?
I'm pretty sure it IS correct. >Example: > LAN --------------+------------- 192.168.1.* > | real eth adapter 192.168.1.1 > +-+-+ > host OS | | > +-+-+ 192.168.2.1 > | virt. eth adapter > +-+-+ 192.168.2.2 > guest OS | | > +---+ > >On the Guest you need to set the default route to eth0: >$ route add default eth0 This was the default after I had installed Debian, but it didn't work. So I tried something like "route add default gw <ipaddr>," where <ipaddr> was the IP address of my host's real ethernet adapter (which I could already ping at that time) or the real gateway in my LAN. Anyway, for communicating with machines on my LAN I shouldn't need any default route, cause all machines are in the same subnet, and a route to this subnet thru the eth0 interface is created automagically by the kernel. >On the LAN you have to tell the machines to route packets for >192.168.2.* through the host (Assuming they are Windows): >C:\> route -p add 192.168.2.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.1 This assumes that I put the guest OS into a different subnet from my LAN machines. Is this necessary, or why are you assuming this? >If you use the same subnet for host/guest and lan, the host has to do >bridging of IP-Packets between the two interfaces, i have no idea how >to do this on NT..... Do I understand you correctly that the approach of putting the guest VM into a different subnet and creating a proxy route entry(?) to this net is KNOWN/has been verified to work? Is there anyone here who got a setup similar to mine working? Thanks. -- Sign the EU petition against SPAM: L I N U X .~. http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/ The Choice /V\ of a GNU /( )\ Generation ^^-^^
