On Sat, Sep 29, 2007 at 09:49:36PM -0600, Simon Timms wrote:
> That makes a lot of sense, but I suppose I still don't understand why this
> isn't working.  The handbook section on routing is pretty basic and it seems
> to come down to setting net.inet.ip.forwarding to 1 if you want to route
> packets between interfaces on a dual-homed host.  I'm able to reach hosts on
> both subnets from the router and my routing table looks like:
> 
> Internet:
> Destination        Gateway              Flags       Refs      Use  Netif
> Expire
> default               wireless               UGS         0          9905
> sis0
> localhost           localhost              UH            0           134
> lo0
> 192.168.1          link#1                  UC            0               0
> sis0
> orinoco              00:d0:09:f8:f7:5a  UHLW       1           268    lo0
> 192.168.1.255    ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff            UHLWb     1             87
> sis0
> 192.168.2          link#2                  UC            0             0
> rl0
> 192.168.2.255    ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff            UHLWb     1            87
> rl0

Are your 192.168.2/24 machines configured to use 192.168.2.2 as their
default router? They don't know where 192.168.1.2 is, because they 
don't see it as being on the same link. The subnet mask is used to
determine this kind of reachability.

You could probably use 192.168.1.2 as your default router, as long as
you created a static route `route add 192.168.1/24 192.168.2.2', telling
the system that to get to 192.168.1/24, the next-hop is 192.168.2.2.
This seems needlessly complex when you can just configure 192.168.2.2 as
your default router and skip the static route configuration all
together.

Regardless, bridging isn't going to help unless the host and the default
router have the same subnet configurations.

-- 
Chris Cowart
Lead Systems Administrator
Network & Infrastructure Services, RSSP-IT
UC Berkeley

Attachment: pgpCEPtjnYgPE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to