looks to me as though he's more like this (or perhaps it should be?):
Router (200.199.99.193)
|
#1
| +-#4
Hub-----------Hub2-+-#5
|
+---+
| |
#2 #3
The gateway for #1 should be the router.
The gateway for the rest of the machines should be the ip address of eth1
of machine #1.
By default, the router should point everything to #1
ipchains or, preferably, iptables, can then sort out everything else for
the various ports for the rest of the machines.
Ian
On Sat, 28 Sep 2002, Scott Krabler wrote:
> It sounds like you want couple of machines to be masked behind another one.
> Here's the proper config (below). Default gateway for #4 & #5 is #1 (second
> interface). dgw for #1-3 is the router's inside interface.
>
> In order to route traffic, you must have separate LAN segments.
>
> Router
> |
> Hub
> |
> +----+---+
> | | |
> #1 #2 #3
> |
> Hub
> |
> +---+
> | |
> #4 #5
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Luciano Eicke
> Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2002 3:27 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: routing how to
>
>
> Hi,
>
> I've been trying to "play" with route and ipchains for a while with no
> success. I hope somebody can help me.
>
> The scenario:
>
> I have an internet link with valid IP addresses.
>
> My router IP address is 200.199.99.193
>
> I have a Linux-RedHat 7.2 server (#1) at 200.199.99.195 (ETH0), default
> gateway pointing to the router (200.199.99.193).
> I have a second Linux server (#2) at 200.199.99.220 (ETH0)
> I have a third Linux server (#3) at 200.199.99.221 (ETH0)
>
> I have two NT servers (#4 and #5) at 200.199.99.194 and 200.199.99.196
> respectively, default gateway pointing to the router (200.199.99.193).
>
> Servers #1, #4, #5 and the router are connected to the same hub.
> Servers #2 and #3 are connected to another hub, which in turn is "uplinked"
> to the first hub.
>
> I want #1 to control how much bandwidth is allocated to servers #2 and #3 (I
> intend to use HTB), so i need to enable servers #2 and #3 to get to the
> router (and from there to the internet and vice-versa) through server #1.
> I mean, all incoming and outgoing traffic related to servers #2 should flow
> like:
> server #2 => server #1 => router => internet
> internet => router => server #1 => server #2
>
> The same to server #3.
>
> Servers #4 and #5 must not depend on server #1, so these servers'direct
> connection to the router must remain.
>
> What I tried:
>
> I installed a second ethernet adapter at server #1 (ETH1), assigned a local
> IP address to it (10.1.1.8), connected a UTP to the hub and to the ETH1
> interface and set IPChains Input rules as:
> >From 200.199.99.220, iface ETH1 (i did the same to server #3)
> To 0.0.0.0
> Redirect to host 200.199.99.193
>
> What I wanted to happen is all incoming traffic from server #2
> (200.199.99.220) arriving at the ETH1 interface to be forwarded to the
> router (200.199.99.193).
> Since I have a default gateway to 200.199.99.193, I assumed the static route
> table would take care of it.
>
> Is this approach correct or I'm going the wrong way ?
>
> Does the standard installation of IPChains (the one that ships with Red Hat
> 7.2) allows "forwarding" ?
>
> I went through the how-to's at linuxdoc and other sources but I was unable
> to put the pieces together.
>
> Any help would be most appreciated.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Luciano Eicke
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seawolf-list mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/seawolf-list
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Seawolf-list mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/seawolf-list
>
_______________________________________________
Seawolf-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/seawolf-list
