>>> DSL modem (Cayman 3220 DSL router). The router acts as a firewall
>>> (which I hate but really can't do anything about). The router is
>>> defined as 192.168.1.254, and has 4 ethernet connections on the front.
>
>I was talking with a person that works for the company that supplies our
>DSL connections and he told me that they are going away from the DSL
>technology that is currently being used.
>
>The problem with the current DSL modems that since they are "cable extenders"
>they cannot query them to find out what is going on. By this I mean to find
>out if the modem is even working becaue of a problem within it, or if even the
>phone line is down. The only info they can find out now if if there is
>any traffic at the DSLAM.
>
>They will be going to new DSL modems that are router type modems and they
>will probably result in the user's ethernet address being 10.0.0.2, as
>reported by the previous poster. But, those of use who have the current
>modems will probably be grandfathered and not replaced.
>
>So, while my area cureently does not have router DSL modems, it will.
The Cisco 675 US West provided me with can be configured as either a
router or a bridge. However my ISP, Citilink.Com, is set up so that it
must be configured as a router. I tried using PPPoE authentication with
the Cisco 675 set up as a bridge, but my ISP didn't even acknowledge my
login attempts.
With my current configuration the LAN side of the router has the address
of 10.0.0.1, the WAN side is set to my static IP address, eth0 in my
Linux box which accesses the router is set to 10.0.0.2. This has made
setting up my routing table very interesting. It currently reads as:
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
10.0.0.1 10.0.0.2 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth0
192.168.1.11 192.168.1.10 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth1
192.168.1.12 192.168.1.10 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth1
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
0.0.0.0 10.0.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
To gain access to the world wide web I had to set 10.0.0.1 as the default
gateway (the LAN side of the router) and include a hop from 10.0.0.2 (eth0
in my Linux box) to the LAN side of the router, treating 10.0.0.1 as a
gateway-host:
10.0.0.1 10.0.0.2 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 10.0.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
However, when I did this I lost contact with my LAN, so I had to set up
specific routing to each host:
192.168.1.11 192.168.1.10 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth1
192.168.1.12 192.168.1.10 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth1
Simply setting up eth1 (as shown next) as a default gateway didn't work
(although I don't know why):
0.0.0.0 10.0.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 192.168.1.10 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1
When I tried to ping a host on the LAN it read as follows and was unable
to access it:
PING glen (192.168.1.12) from 10.0.0.2 : 56(84) bytes of data.
Note that it was trying to access the LAN through the eth0 10.0.0.2 when
it should be trying to access it through eth1 192.168.1.10. Setting up
specific routing to hosts on the LAN fixed the problem but means I'll have
to manually change the table every time I add in another PC.
Glen
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
