On 09/06/2012 11:11 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:54 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>>
>> I did this. I put the virtual interface address 192.168.0.1 back onto
>> eth1 of the gateway host and restarted the network services. The
>> ifcfg file looked like this:
>>
>> BOOTPROTO=none
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 3:54 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> I did this. I put the virtual interface address 192.168.0.1 back onto
> eth1 of the gateway host and restarted the network services. The
> ifcfg file looked like this:
>
> BOOTPROTO=none
> BROADCAST=192.168.255.255
> DEVICE=eth1:192
> IPA
Well, I seem to be getting somewhere, although where exactly is open
to question.
I did this. I put the virtual interface address 192.168.0.1 back onto
eth1 of the gateway host and restarted the network services. The
ifcfg file looked like this:
BOOTPROTO=none
BROADCAST=192.168.255.255
DEVICE=e
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 2:04 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> What I wanted to have happen was for all traffic destined for
> 192.168.anything to stay inside the LAN and attached to the specified
> address, while any traffic that originated from 192.168.anything
> destined to anywhere else would route
Per: Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Thu Sep 6 14:20:43 EDT 2012
--->
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:09 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> OK, there is no better match than the default in the route table
> above, so it goes to the default gateway. I assume that's what you
> want if you don't make th
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:09 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
>> A 'route -n' should show you where any destination will head
>> on the next hop. On host C, what is the line with the
>> smallest matching destination/mask? Likewise, on the gateway
>> host where you think it is being forwarded the wrong
Per: Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Thu Sep 6 13:55:05 EDT 2012
> A 'route -n' should show you where any destination will head
> on the next hop. On host C, what is the line with the
> smallest matching destination/mask? Likewise, on the gateway
> host where you think it is being forwarde
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:11 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> I am still having some difficulty understanding what is going on with
> routing on 192.168.x.x.
>
> I have removed the IP aliases from the gateway eth1 so that it only
> responds to aaa.bbb.ccc.1.
>
> I have changed the netmask on Host B eth
I am still having some difficulty understanding what is going on with
routing on 192.168.x.x.
I have removed the IP aliases from the gateway eth1 so that it only
responds to aaa.bbb.ccc.1.
I have changed the netmask on Host B eth1 [192.168.209.43] to
255.255.0.0 and set its gateway to aaa.bbb.ccc
Am 04.09.2012 um 20:34 schrieb James B. Byrne:
> We use a dual homed CentOS-6.3 host for our Internet gateway router.
> Its internal nic (eth1) is configured such that the address
> 192.168.0.1 is one of its aliases.
>
> # cat /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth1:192BOOTPROTO=none
> BROADCAS
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 4:00 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
>> That should happen directly without C's involvement if the netmask is
>> 255.255.0.0 on A and B's eth1 interfaces.
>
> It is not. The netmask on those interfaces is 255.255.255.0.
Netmasks apply to (and describe) connected subnets, not i
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:00 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Tue, September 4, 2012 16:51, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> That should happen directly without C's involvement if the netmask is
>> 255.255.0.0 on A and B's eth1 interfaces.
>
> It is not. The netmask on those interfaces is 255.255.255.0.
On 09/04/12 2:00 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> I am experimenting to see if this arrangement is workable. I want to
> know if it is possible to have two separate 192.168.x subnets on the
> same network. Why? I do not have a purpose in mind. I am just
> checking out whether it can work or not.
>
>
On Tue, September 4, 2012 16:51, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> That should happen directly without C's involvement if the netmask is
> 255.255.0.0 on A and B's eth1 interfaces.
It is not. The netmask on those interfaces is 255.255.255.0.
>
>> Instead it goes to Eth0 on C where it dies as one would
>>
per: Nicolas Thierry-Mieg Nicolas.Thierry-Mieg at imag.fr
Tue Sep 4 16:42:57 EDT 2012
> could you show the result of the route command on host C?
[root@gway01 ~]# ip route
216.185.64.52/30 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 216.185.64.54
10.0.0.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 10
On 09/04/12 1:25 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> I have host A with eth0[aaa.bbb.ccc.A] and eth1[192.168.216.A]
>
> I have host B with eth0[aaa.bbb.ccc.B] and eth1[192.168.209.B]
what are the subnet masks defined on 192.168.216.A and 192.168.209.B ?
> and I have host C as the gateway with eth0 being
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 3:25 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On 09/04/12 12:18 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> There are presently two subnets on the lan, 192.168.209.0 and
>> 192.168.209.0. I believe that the present netmask is correct in these
>> circumstances.
>
> um, those are both the same? I as
James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On 09/04/12 12:18 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> There are presently two subnets on the lan, 192.168.209.0 and
>> 192.168.209.0. I believe that the present netmask is correct in these
>> circumstances.
>
> um, those are both the same? I assume you meant one of them to be
On 09/04/12 12:18 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> There are presently two subnets on the lan, 192.168.209.0 and
> 192.168.209.0. I believe that the present netmask is correct in these
> circumstances.
um, those are both the same? I assume you meant one of them to be
different?
You are correct. I
On 09/04/12 12:18 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> There are presently two subnets on the lan, 192.168.209.0 and
> 192.168.209.0. I believe that the present netmask is correct in these
> circumstances.
um, those are both the same? I assume you meant one of them to be
different?
when you say therre
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 2:18 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> On Tue, September 4, 2012 14:34, James B. Byrne wrote:
>> We use a dual homed CentOS-6.3 host for our Internet gateway router.
>> Its internal nic (eth1) is configured such that the address
>> 192.168.0.1 is one of its aliases.
>>
>
> per:
On Tue, September 4, 2012 14:34, James B. Byrne wrote:
> We use a dual homed CentOS-6.3 host for our Internet gateway router.
> Its internal nic (eth1) is configured such that the address
> 192.168.0.1 is one of its aliases.
>
per: Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
Tue Sep 4 15:01:18 EDT 2012
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:34 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> We use a dual homed CentOS-6.3 host for our Internet gateway router.
> Its internal nic (eth1) is configured such that the address
> 192.168.0.1 is one of its aliases.
>
> # cat /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth1:192BOOTPROTO=none
>> D
We use a dual homed CentOS-6.3 host for our Internet gateway router.
Its internal nic (eth1) is configured such that the address
192.168.0.1 is one of its aliases.
# cat /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth1:192BOOTPROTO=none
BROADCAST=192.168.255.255
DEVICE=eth1:192
IPADDR=192.168.0.1
IPV6IN
24 matches
Mail list logo
