I am still having some difficulty understanding what is going on with
routing on 192.168.x.x.
I have removed the IP aliases from the gateway eth1 so that it only
responds to aaa.bbb.ccc.1.
I have changed the netmask on Host B eth1 [192.168.209.43] to
255.255.0.0 and set its gateway to
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:11 AM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
I am still having some difficulty understanding what is going on with
routing on 192.168.x.x.
I have removed the IP aliases from the gateway eth1 so that it only
responds to aaa.bbb.ccc.1.
I have changed the
Per: Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Thu Sep 6 13:55:05 EDT 2012
A 'route -n' should show you where any destination will head
on the next hop. On host C, what is the line with the
smallest matching destination/mask? Likewise, on the gateway
host where you think it is being forwarded
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:09 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
A 'route -n' should show you where any destination will head
on the next hop. On host C, what is the line with the
smallest matching destination/mask? Likewise, on the gateway
host where you think it is being
Per: Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Thu Sep 6 14:20:43 EDT 2012
---
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:09 PM, James B. Byrne byrnejb at
harte-lyne.ca wrote:
OK, there is no better match than the default in the route table
above, so it goes to the default gateway. I assume that's what you
want
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:04 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
What I wanted to have happen was for all traffic destined for
192.168.anything to stay inside the LAN and attached to the specified
address, while any traffic that originated from 192.168.anything
destined to anywhere
Well, I seem to be getting somewhere, although where exactly is open
to question.
I did this. I put the virtual interface address 192.168.0.1 back onto
eth1 of the gateway host and restarted the network services. The
ifcfg file looked like this:
BOOTPROTO=none
BROADCAST=192.168.255.255
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:54 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
I did this. I put the virtual interface address 192.168.0.1 back onto
eth1 of the gateway host and restarted the network services. The
ifcfg file looked like this:
BOOTPROTO=none
BROADCAST=192.168.255.255
On 09/06/2012 11:11 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:54 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
I did this. I put the virtual interface address 192.168.0.1 back onto
eth1 of the gateway host and restarted the network services. The
ifcfg file looked like this:
We use a dual homed CentOS-6.3 host for our Internet gateway router.
Its internal nic (eth1) is configured such that the address
192.168.0.1 is one of its aliases.
# cat /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth1:192BOOTPROTO=none
BROADCAST=192.168.255.255
DEVICE=eth1:192
IPADDR=192.168.0.1
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:34 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
We use a dual homed CentOS-6.3 host for our Internet gateway router.
Its internal nic (eth1) is configured such that the address
192.168.0.1 is one of its aliases.
# cat
On Tue, September 4, 2012 14:34, James B. Byrne wrote:
We use a dual homed CentOS-6.3 host for our Internet gateway router.
Its internal nic (eth1) is configured such that the address
192.168.0.1 is one of its aliases.
per: Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Tue Sep 4 15:01:18 EDT 2012
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:18 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On Tue, September 4, 2012 14:34, James B. Byrne wrote:
We use a dual homed CentOS-6.3 host for our Internet gateway router.
Its internal nic (eth1) is configured such that the address
192.168.0.1 is one of its
On 09/04/12 12:18 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
There are presently two subnets on the lan, 192.168.209.0 and
192.168.209.0. I believe that the present netmask is correct in these
circumstances.
um, those are both the same? I assume you meant one of them to be
different?
when you say therre
On 09/04/12 12:18 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
There are presently two subnets on the lan, 192.168.209.0 and
192.168.209.0. I believe that the present netmask is correct in these
circumstances.
um, those are both the same? I assume you meant one of them to be
different?
You are correct. I
James B. Byrne wrote:
On 09/04/12 12:18 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
There are presently two subnets on the lan, 192.168.209.0 and
192.168.209.0. I believe that the present netmask is correct in these
circumstances.
um, those are both the same? I assume you meant one of them to be
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:25 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On 09/04/12 12:18 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
There are presently two subnets on the lan, 192.168.209.0 and
192.168.209.0. I believe that the present netmask is correct in these
circumstances.
um, those are both the
On 09/04/12 1:25 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
I have host A with eth0[aaa.bbb.ccc.A] and eth1[192.168.216.A]
I have host B with eth0[aaa.bbb.ccc.B] and eth1[192.168.209.B]
what are the subnet masks defined on 192.168.216.A and 192.168.209.B ?
and I have host C as the gateway with eth0 being
per: Nicolas Thierry-Mieg Nicolas.Thierry-Mieg at imag.fr
Tue Sep 4 16:42:57 EDT 2012
could you show the result of the route command on host C?
[root@gway01 ~]# ip route
216.185.64.52/30 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 216.185.64.54
10.0.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src
On Tue, September 4, 2012 16:51, Les Mikesell wrote:
That should happen directly without C's involvement if the netmask is
255.255.0.0 on A and B's eth1 interfaces.
It is not. The netmask on those interfaces is 255.255.255.0.
Instead it goes to Eth0 on C where it dies as one would
On 09/04/12 2:00 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
I am experimenting to see if this arrangement is workable. I want to
know if it is possible to have two separate 192.168.x subnets on the
same network. Why? I do not have a purpose in mind. I am just
checking out whether it can work or not.
If
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:00 AM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
On Tue, September 4, 2012 16:51, Les Mikesell wrote:
That should happen directly without C's involvement if the netmask is
255.255.0.0 on A and B's eth1 interfaces.
It is not. The netmask on those interfaces is
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:00 PM, James B. Byrne byrn...@harte-lyne.ca wrote:
That should happen directly without C's involvement if the netmask is
255.255.0.0 on A and B's eth1 interfaces.
It is not. The netmask on those interfaces is 255.255.255.0.
Netmasks apply to (and describe) connected
Am 04.09.2012 um 20:34 schrieb James B. Byrne:
We use a dual homed CentOS-6.3 host for our Internet gateway router.
Its internal nic (eth1) is configured such that the address
192.168.0.1 is one of its aliases.
# cat /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth1:192BOOTPROTO=none
24 matches
Mail list logo
