On 18:21 Mon 20 Oct , Jason Stubbs wrote: > On Monday 20 October 2003 18:41, Selentek 24331-03 wrote: > > On 10:30 Mon 20 Oct , David Gethings wrote: > > > On Mon, 2003-10-20 at 09:48, Selentek 24331-03 wrote: > > > > default * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth1 <- I down't know what is this. > > > > > > That is you default route. It is the route your PC uses to send traffic > > > to your Cisco. > > > > > > > Is it right to ping 192.168.1.12 from 5.5.5.2 ? > > > > > > If you are pinging from the PC that bridges the two netwroks, then yes > > > you will be able to ping both networks. > > > > > > > I down't want to see 192.168.1.12 from 5.5.5.0 network. > > > > > > I'm no expert on UNIX routing, but from the details you given I can see > > > no reason why this is possible. Unless you have another PC that bridges > > > these two networks. > > > > > > > Sorry for my english. > > > > > > You're doing fine... > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > Dg > > > > > > > > > -- > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > > > > One more detail with tcpdump: > > sudo tcpdump -f -i eth0 icmp > > tcpdump: listening on eth0 > > 13:50:21.969383 5.5.5.2 > 192.168.1.12: icmp: echo request > > 13:50:21.969436 192.168.1.12 > 5.5.5.2: icmp: echo reply > > What's the routing table on 5.5.5.2? If there's no static route to 192.168.1.0 > via 192.168.1.12 and it's not the default gateway then 5.5.5.2 should not > even send out an arp request. Is the device that is 5.5.5.2's default route > aware of 192.168.1.12? If so, that could explain why 5.5.5.2 can ping > 192.168.1.12 directly. > > Jason > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list >
route on 5.5.5.2 5.5.5.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 loopback localhost 255.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 lo default 5.5.5.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 It's very strage for me. (Ping) Icmp packets to the interface eth1 (192.168.1.12) flying throw eth0 (5.5.5.98). Is it a normal situation and the solution is iptables ? or it's a unnormal situation? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
