>
> Claudio,
> I think NAT is already configured from what was posted, AFAIK he was
> expecting to exit his network by broadcast instead of specifying the IP
> address of the DG explicitly
>
> Tony
>
I just read through the posts again. There is no mention of NAT, only
routing.
Claudio,
I think NAT is already configured from what was posted, AFAIK he was
expecting to exit his network by broadcast instead of specifying the IP
address of the DG explicitly
Tony
On Jul 25, 2013 9:17 AM, "Claudio Kuenzler" wrote:
> Ok, I just figured out what's going on.. The network 192.16
Hello Luis,
Your host routing table specifically identifies the DGW as 192.168.5.1 (the
last line)
why would you think you could "go anywhere" without a DGW?
Tony
On Jul 25, 2013 7:08 AM, "Luis M. Ibarra" wrote:
> Hi everybody,
>
> I run over this issue. I have an lxc host with this routing ta
>
> Ok, I just figured out what's going on.. The network 192.168.1.0 doesn't
> have a route to known the hosts in the network 192.168.5.0.
>
> Is it possible to NAT all the lxc network to route to the 192.168.1.0?
>
You can create iptables NAT postrouting for the internal (192.168.5.0)
addresses t
Ok, I just figured out what's going on.. The network 192.168.1.0 doesn't
have a route to known the hosts in the network 192.168.5.0.
Is it possible to NAT all the lxc network to route to the 192.168.1.0?
2013/7/25 Luis M. Ibarra
> Hi Tony,
>
> I forgort to add the ip addresses of the host and t
Hi Tony,
I forgort to add the ip addresses of the host and the guest:
Host: 192.168.5.154
Guest: 192.168.5.215
GW connected to Internet: 192.168.5.1
Tony, you were right, I just tested and the host it's connecting to all the
192.168.5.0 using 192.168.5.154 as a default gateway. However, I can't
