Dan O'Neal wrote:
> I have a simple routing question. I have a firewall box with two
> interfaces in it. It is only routing a single class C. Here is how it's
> setup:
>
>
> [server1]----[server2]------[eth0][FW][eth1]------[server3]------[server4]
>
>
> Server 1 has an address of 192.168.0.50
> Server 2 has an address of 192.168.0.51
>
> Firewall eth0 has an address of 192.168.0.10
> Firewall eth1 has an address of 192.168.0.11
>
> Server 3 has an address of 192.168.0.90
> Server 4 has an address of 192.168.0.91
Whilst this is doable, it might simplify matters to use two /25
subnets, i.e. 0-127 for server1, server2 and eth0, 128-255 for
server3, server4 and eth1.
> Here is the problem, I can get on the firewall/proxy and ping the eth0
> interface and both server 1 and 2 BUT I can not ping server 3 or 4 OR the
> eth1 interface.
Have you added the appropriate routes? E.g.
route add -host 192.168.0.11 dev eth1
route add -host 192.168.0.90 dev eth1
route add -host 192.168.0.91 dev eth1
> What would be the easiest way to route those IP addresses over both of the
> interfaces in the firewall? This is on linux slakware 3.4. I had it setup
> to where it would route two different subnets, 192.168.2.0/24 on one side
> and 192.168.0.0/24 on the other and it worked fine. What am I doing wrong
> for a simple single class C?
Probably failing to add the appropriate routes. The kernel can't
figure out which interface to use by itself; you have to tell it.
--
Glynn Clements <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
