"BG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I think you will find your network construction is the problem. I think > this is what you want: > > INTERNET > | > | > | > DSL Modem > | > | > m5 > | > |__________ROUTER > | > | > | > ________________ > | | | | > | | | | > m1 m2 m3 m4
No, thats not what I wanted. I want my tinkering to remain protected behind the firewall. I'm not that good at iptables or networking in general, that I want to match wits with every whiz kid on the internet. That hardware firewall bounces most malicious crud. The door rattlers, 111 port seekers, subseven zealots etc etc. "Bruce A. Mallett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > You've got them both configured for 192.168.0/24, so given a > 192.168.0.xxx address ... how is the machine going to figure out which > nic to talk (back) through? > > You need to make one of them something else, like 192.168.1/24 or > perhaps subnet down the 192.168.0.xxx to make distinct networks. Haa, kind of like expecting water to pour out both ends of the same hose, I guess. Not sure what you mean by `subnetting down' the 192.168.0.xxx. But I guess if I make the machines on eth1 into 192.168.1.xxx, that should show if its going to work... eh? Doing that, at first I saw no change... then I finally noticed another even dumber error. I had left (what is now) 192.168.1.1 (eth1) plugged into an uplink port and never pressed the button that turns it back into a regular port. This hub had been in an uplink configuration. Sooo, turning off uplinking and with the address corrections, I'm now in business. Anyone need expert networking addvice... or perhaps a fool proof firewall... Cheap but expert administration... I'm your guy.. NOT! _______________________________________________ Redhat-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
