> 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.128 eth0
> 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.128 eth0:0
> 192...168.1.254 * 255.255.255.255 eth0:0
> default 192.168.1.254 0.0.0.0 eth0:0
Why the host route? (the one with the 255.255.255.255 mask)
>then the masquerading also works. Does it make sense that I have to
>change my local network route and my default route over to the aliased
>address, just so that will be the return address used on masqueraded
>connections?
>
>The ipchains command I am using is:
> ipchains -A forward -i eth0:0 -s 10.0.0.0/8 -d 0/0 -j MASQ
Based on your IPCHAINS command.. yes.
>Please advise, because I'd like to implement this cleanly and correctly.
I would recommend 2 NICs over aliases ethernet cards if you
can afford it. It will just make things clearer.
--David
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| David A. Ranch - Remote Access/Linux/PC hardware [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
!---- ----!
`----- For more detailed info, see http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~dranch -----'
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For daily digest info, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
