Juan, thanks for the response and the suggestion.
Just as I changed the netmask on the other side of GW2 - several miles
from here - to 255.0.0.0, I realized it would affect my telnet session,
since I had changed the netmask and all so it included the "real" network.
Sure enough... <return>... <nothing>... "Doh!"
While I pondered the drive to the other building to correct the situation
from the console, though, I thought about this one. I had previously
tried making both ends in the same /24 net, but had the same problem - no
broadcast traffic across the tunnel.
Since the corporate LAN is 10.x.x.x, I think I may try changing the end
networks to 192.168.1.0/24 just to keep from confusing those who follow me
on this project. That way I can screw up all I need to and not have to
make the drive again.
Dale
---
"A computer lets you make more mistakes faster than any invention
in human history - with the possible exceptions of handguns and tequila."
-Mitch Ratliffe, Technology Review April, 1992
On Tue, 16 Mar 1999, Juan Carlos Castro y Castro wrote:
> Dale, ignore the previous message. This one is the good one.
>
> (Absolutely untested, but here it goes)
>
> Mainly, you set both LANs with addresses that would fall into the same
> net and use static routes at the gateways. The fact that the
> communication is via an IP-IP tunnel is irrelevant. Working on your
> diagram...
8< [snip...]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
