r.
Hi Chema,
All you should need is to enable routing between
configured interfaces:
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
or
sysctl -w net/ipv4/ip_forward=1
Good Luck,
Sean
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
Hello,
I would like to route two networks using one network -card. I think i
can set to diferent ip address for that card using alias. But how can i
enroute the traficc from one network to another.
suppose network1 is 10.0.0.0 and network2 is 192.168.0.0.Could it be
like this?:
route add -net 10.
modprobe iptable_nat
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o ppp0 -j MASQUERADE
/sbin/service iptables save
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
Make sure you have a default route
ip route add default dev ppp0
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.re
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I need to setup IP routing and a Firewall very quickly on LINUX.
Unfortunately I've never done this before on LINUX. Does anybody have any
really simple instructions or can they offer any advice.
My internal network (corporate LAN) is on the 10.1.30.x to 10.1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I need to setup IP routing and a Firewall very quickly on LINUX.
Unfortunately I've never done this before on LINUX. Does anybody have any
really simple instructions or can they offer any advice.
My internal network (corporate LAN) is on the 10.1.30.x to 10.1
Hi,
I need to setup IP routing and a Firewall very quickly on LINUX.
Unfortunately I've never done this before on LINUX. Does anybody have any
really simple instructions or can they offer any advice.
My internal network (corporate LAN) is on the 10.1.30.x to 10.1.32.x range
with a subn
Take a look at:
http://www.docs.uu.se/docs/research/projects/selnet/lunar/
as this sounds like it may work for your project if the capability of
the wireless cards you're using are OK.
Hey Mike,
Nice find, it looks pretty good. It pushes the routing discovery to
a custom layer below
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 03:14, Asbjorn Hoiland Aarrestad wrote:
> Got a challenging routing problem, and perhaps some of you can help me.
>
> The network is as follows.
> We have 12 "standalone" nodes with wireless lan cards. The nodes are
> placed on a line, and the aver
ere then it would be possible to
> > > treat all the nodes as a single segment with no need for layer 3
> > > routing. But then again the subject line did suggest a routing
> > > question not a wireless question ;o)
> >
> > my experience with wireless networks a
On Saturday 20 September 2003 08:38, Asbjorn Hoiland Aarrestad wrote:
> > AFAIK bridging isn't an option on wireless, at least not for this
> > kind of relay network, if it were then it would be possible to
> > treat all the nodes as a single segment with no need for layer 3
with no need for
> > layer 3 routing. But then again the subject line did suggest a
> > routing question not a wireless question ;o)
>
> my experience with wireless networks aren't that big either, and
> that's why I put this question here. The subject line w
AFAIK bridging isn't an option on wireless, at least not for this kind
of relay network, if it were then it would be possible to treat all the
nodes as a single segment with no need for layer 3 routing. But then
again the subject line did suggest a routing question not a wireless
question ;
On 19 Sep 2003 17:28:23 -0500
Bret Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have zero experience with wireless so excuse my boneheaded
> question(s). I think this is going to make me take an orthogonal view
> from how I normally picture a network. Perhaps it is my needing to
> re
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 14:11, Sean Estabrooks wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:14:40 +0200
> Asbjorn Hoiland Aarrestad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Got a challenging routing problem, and perhaps some of you can help
> > me.
> >
> > The network is as fol
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003 10:14:40 +0200
Asbjorn Hoiland Aarrestad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Got a challenging routing problem, and perhaps some of you can help
> me.
>
> The network is as follows.
> We have 12 "standalone" nodes with wireless lan cards. The nodes a
Got a challenging routing problem, and perhaps some of you can help me.
The network is as follows.
We have 12 "standalone" nodes with wireless lan cards. The nodes are
placed on a line, and the average distance between each node is 400
meters. With good wireless cards, that means t
I am trying to relay mail from external to an internal Exchange server through
sendmail for security and spam protection. Here is my setup:
internal <-< Sendmail
On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 06:30, gaston wrote:
> I tried enabling proxy arp, and now it`s working. Thank you very much for
> your help.
>
>
Hmm. Well, I am glad you got it working. I just saw your post, and was
going to suggest that you try filtering by ip address and drop the mac
address stuff.
I tried enabling proxy arp, and now it`s working. Thank you very much for
your help.
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
> Message: 6
> Subject: Re: Routing problem
> to what is the variables $IP and $MAC set?
>
> again,
>
> iptables-save -c > gastonrules.out
>
> and mail me the file gastonrules.out and lets see what is actually
> making it to iptables.
>
> B
** Reply to message from gaston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Fri, 12 Sep 2003
15:32:32 -0300
> -Original Message-
> This is feeling like a firewall issue to me so lets look more closely at
> that.
>
> Not knowing your firewall script (I have lazily allowed shorewall to
> abstract my thinking to
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 13:32, gaston wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> This is feeling like a firewall issue to me so lets look more closely at
> that.
>
> Not knowing your firewall script (I have lazily allowed shorewall to
> abstract my thinking to it way of doing things) why don't we t
-Original Message-
This is feeling like a firewall issue to me so lets look more closely at
that.
Not knowing your firewall script (I have lazily allowed shorewall to
abstract my thinking to it way of doing things) why don't we take a look
at the rules as the are actually in iptables
This is feeling like a firewall issue to me so lets look more closely at
that.
Not knowing your firewall script (I have lazily allowed shorewall to
abstract my thinking to it way of doing things) why don't we take a look
at the rules as the are actually in iptables
why don't you post the output
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 09:23, gaston wrote:
> Yes, from the linux box I can reach everything.
>
> This are some things I found in /var/log/messages
>
> kernel: martian source 208.53.98.198 from 127.0.0.1, on dev eth0
> kernel: ll header: 00:50:fc:89:70:ef:00:06:28:cf:ad:e0:08:00
>
> These are the
Yes the Cisco is properly configured and working fine, routing other stuff.
-Original Message-
From: Michael Gargiullo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: redhat mailing list <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 10:04:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Routing problem
> Just curious, do you
ep 2003 23:15:05 -0500
Subject: Re: Routing problem
> On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 22:43, gaston wrote:
> > Internet
> > |
> > |
> > |
>
ETH1 --> IP:208.53.164.254Net 208.53.164.0/24
> >
> > |
> > |
> > |_
> > | |
> > | Switch 2 | -- Clients
> >
> >
> >
> |
> |_
> | |
> | Switch 2 | -- Clients
>
>
> |___|
>
> Red Hat Linux 9
> Kernel: 2.4.20-8
> I used the traditional routing config (without iproute2)
>
>
> Routing table
inux 9
Kernel: 2.4.20-8
I used the traditional routing config (without iproute2)
Routing table:
208.53.98.128 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.128 U 0 eth0
208.53.164.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 eth1
169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0
i would like to make it appear like two different computer,
but most importantly, make sure it is using both, nic
so i can get a full 200Mbits out
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Jonathan Bartlett wrote:
> > an ip will be assigned to both nics on the same subnet.
> > how would i setup the route so that tr
> an ip will be assigned to both nics on the same subnet.
> how would i setup the route so that traffic coming in from
> one nic is passed back out the same nic. ??
I'm at a loss for what you're trying to do. Why would you spit traffic
out on the same subnet it came in on?
> it appears that it t
i am trying to use two separate nics.
an ip will be assigned to both nics on the same subnet.
how would i setup the route so that traffic coming in from
one nic is passed back out the same nic. ??
it appears that it travels back the same route ( eth0 )
that is set for the default route.
than
y way to
get to them is via the Internet link, implying that the routing tables
are hosed.
What he *should* have done (and it probably is not too late) is to
realize that only those computers that are actually connected to the
Comcast network need their own IP address. In my household of
*several* co
Ed Wilts wrote:
What I do is connect a Linksys router/firewall to the cable modem.
Yes, that seems like it would be the best solution. Thanks for the
suggestions all.
--Lee
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
IL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 8/2/2003 6:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject:Re: Comcast & Routing
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Second, maybe this is just semantics, but you do not need a proxy server. (did you
>mean connection sharing?) A proxy catches web requests and
Establish the internl network using a "cable router".
All local IPs are then assigned by the router , and the router goes to the
cable and gets its EXTERNAL IP there. The cable sees your net as one
address, and all internal messaging stays internal, with only the internet
bound traffic actually
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 04:59:56PM -0400, Lee Flier wrote:
> Otto Haliburton wrote:
>
> >Yes, what you are wanting to do is doable, but remember that in general
> >you will not get support from Comcast for linux,
> >
> Yes, I'm aware of that. :-) I already have it working fine with Linux
> on my
ust 02, 2003 5:17 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Comcast & Routing
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >Second, maybe this is just semantics, but you do not need a proxy
> server. (did you mean connection sharing?) A proxy catches web
> requests and check
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Second, maybe this is just semantics, but you do not need a proxy server. (did you mean connection sharing?) A proxy catches web requests and checks to see if it already has the page in its cache. This will speed up web access in some situations enormously but I've never
The way I've done it is to have your linux box contain two NICs. Eth0
(NIC#1) connects to your cable modem. Eth1 (NIC#2) connects to your
Windows Box's NIC via a cross-over cat5 cable. Then activate connection
sharing in your Linux box by assigning Eth0 to your internet IP address
and Eth1 t
operly using earlier versions. Linux will
be more reliable than WIndows, IMHO.
-Alan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 8/2/2003 4:33 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject:Re: Comcast & Routing
I will soon have a similar
Saturday, August 02, 2003 4:00 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Comcast & Routing
>
> Otto Haliburton wrote:
>
> >Yes, what you are wanting to do is doable, but remember that in
> general
> >you will not get support from Comcast for linux,
> >
>
Otto Haliburton wrote:
Yes, what you are wanting to do is doable, but remember that in general
you will not get support from Comcast for linux,
Yes, I'm aware of that. :-) I already have it working fine with Linux
on my dual boot machine, it's just making the two private IP's work with
the one
S etc.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:redhat-list-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lee Flier
> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 3:34 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Comcast & Routing
>
> I will soon have a similar situation... I have two co
I will soon have a similar situation... I have two computers at home.
One is the one I'm using now which is currently dual boot RH9/Windows
98. It's connected to the Internet via cable modem (RCA) and has a
static IP address.
What I would like to do is install RH9 on a second computer, have a
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:redhat-list-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sevatio
> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 11:16 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: Comcast & Routing
>
>
>
> Otto Haliburton wrote:
> >
Otto Haliburton wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:redhat-list-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sevatio
Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 10:23 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Comcast & Routing
Hardware Scenario: 2 PCs connected to a hub/switch and the hub/sw
Sevatio wrote:
> Hardware Scenario: 2 PCs connected to a hub/switch and the hub/switch
> is connected to a Comcast cable modem that is then connected to the
> Comcast Cable Internet system.
>
> Main Question: Is it possible to route things in a manner that enables
> the 2 PCs to send data (via FTP
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:redhat-list-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Sevatio
> Sent: Saturday, August 02, 2003 10:23 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Comcast & Routing
>
> Hardware Scenario: 2 PCs connected to a hub/sw
On Sat, Aug 02, 2003 at 08:22:52AM -0700, Sevatio wrote:
> Hardware Scenario: 2 PCs connected to a hub/switch and the hub/switch is
> connected to a Comcast cable modem that is then connected to the Comcast
> Cable Internet system.
>
> Main Question: Is it possible to route things in a manner th
Hardware Scenario: 2 PCs connected to a hub/switch and the hub/switch is
connected to a Comcast cable modem that is then connected to the Comcast
Cable Internet system.
Main Question: Is it possible to route things in a manner that enables
the 2 PCs to send data (via FTP or whatever) to each ot
sn't seem
that routing for these ports are being allowed between eth0 and eth1.
How do I enable this?
I'm about as far removed from a guru in the ways of iptables that one
can get, but it would make sense to me that you would need to add some
forwarding rules between eth0 and eth1 fo
bles config file
-A RH-Lokkit-0-50-INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 4662 --syn -j ACCEPT
-A RH-Lokkit-0-50-INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 4672 -j ACCEPT
But the clients are not getting through. I can telnet to these ports
(get a response) so they are open on the outside, but it doesn't seem
tha
* 45.798 ms !H
Is this normal for new subnets? They are getting 2 /24 ranges (Class C?)
subnets and I was wondering if this is normal for newly issued ip
ranges. whois has the co-lo name and the name of the wholesale isp
(Ameritech) registered but still no routing available to either network
from SBC
On mardi, juil 8, 2003, at 14:08 Europe/Paris, Luciano Rabelo wrote:
Hi,
Hi Luciano,
Does anyone know where I can find information about Linux Routing.
Take a look at :
http://lartc.org/
R.
--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo
Hi,
Does anyone know where I can find information about Linux Routing. I'm
looking for benchmarks to compare routing using a Linux box or another
router, like Cisco.
I want to create a Linux router to connect ethernet and token ring networks.
Thanks!
[]
Lu
In RedHat 9 the 169.254.0.0/16 gets added to the routing table on boot.
Probably to play nicely with windows boxen. In Windows 2000+, if there
is no DHCP server available, an APIPA address (169.254.x.x) is
assigned.
Yep. RedHat 9 introduces zeroconf, which you need to disable if you
don&#
Around Mon,Jun 09 2003, at 07:59, MKlinke, wrote:
> On Monday 09 June 2003 18:28, Roger wrote:
> > Around Mon,Jun 09 2003, at 10:06, Nick White, wrote:
> > > In RedHat 9 the 169.254.0.0/16 gets added to the routing table on
> > > boot. Probably to play nicely with
, June 09, 2003 10:24 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: routing table
Nick White wrote:
>In RedHat 9 the 169.254.0.0/16 gets added to the routing table on boot.
>Probably to play nicely with windows boxen. In Windows 2000+, if there
>is no DHCP server available, an APIPA address (
On Monday 09 June 2003 18:28, Roger wrote:
> Around Mon,Jun 09 2003, at 10:06, Nick White, wrote:
> > In RedHat 9 the 169.254.0.0/16 gets added to the routing table on
> > boot. Probably to play nicely with windows boxen. In Windows
> > 2000+, if there is no DHCP serve
Around Mon,Jun 09 2003, at 10:06, Nick White, wrote:
> In RedHat 9 the 169.254.0.0/16 gets added to the routing table on boot.
> Probably to play nicely with windows boxen. In Windows 2000+, if there
> is no DHCP server available, an APIPA address (169.254.x.x) is assigned.
>
Not
Nick White wrote:
In RedHat 9 the 169.254.0.0/16 gets added to the routing table on boot.
Probably to play nicely with windows boxen. In Windows 2000+, if there
is no DHCP server available, an APIPA address (169.254.x.x) is assigned.
To stop RedHat from using it, try adding the following line to
In RedHat 9 the 169.254.0.0/16 gets added to the routing table on boot.
Probably to play nicely with windows boxen. In Windows 2000+, if there
is no DHCP server available, an APIPA address (169.254.x.x) is assigned.
To stop RedHat from using it, try adding the following line to
/etc/sysconfig
antonio wrote:
An additional clue:
in my office network that is very similar to my home network of my
previous message output of netstat .nr is:
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window
irtt Iface
192.168.100.1 0.0.0.0
available internally).
Im a bit scared since last time I checked the routing table in one of my
boxes I found the following:
$ netstat -nr
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt
Iface
192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U
xes, d-link broadband router, nfs to be available internally).
>
> Im a bit scared since last time I checked the routing table in one of my
> boxes I found the following:
> $ netstat -nr
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags
files. My question is: which are the immediate steps (for
an unexperienced user) to minimize security risks with this setting (two
boxes, d-link broadband router, nfs to be available internally).
Im a bit scared since last time I checked the routing table in one of my
boxes I found the following
** Reply to message from Ralph Guzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Sat, 22 Mar 2003 17:51:42
-0800
> Larry,
>
> I corrected the typo, but I still get this error:
>
> iptables v1.2.6a: Unknown arg `--to'
> Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more information.
$IPTABLES -A PREROUTING -t nat -p
On Sat, 22 Mar 2003, Ralph Guzman wrote:
> I corrected the typo, but I still get this error:
>
> iptables v1.2.6a: Unknown arg `--to'
> Try `iptables -h' or 'iptables --help' for more information.
Pardon me for butting in herebut this is one of the reasons why I
recommend the use of a good fr
Of Larry Brown
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 4:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IPTABLES Routing
You must have missed my last e-mail. You have a typo..
$IPTABLES -A PREROUTING -t nat -p TCP -d --dport
2000 -j dnat -t 10.200.200.10:23
the -t is supposed to be --to
$IPTABLES -A PREROUT
.
(727) 723-8388
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Ralph Guzman
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 6:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IPTABLES Routing
Larry I followed your instructions. I added the following to my
rc.firewall script
arry Brown
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 12:39 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: IPTABLES Routing
Are you sure you want clear text passwords being passed across the
internet? You would be served much better using ssh instead. Whichever
you choose, you can do either with iptables.
i
you
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Larry BrownSent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 12:39
AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: IPTABLES
Routing
Are
you sure you want clear text passwords being passed across the internet? You wou
Ralph Guzman
Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003
3:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: IPTABLES Routing
Here is
my situation:
I have
a Redhat 8.0 server setup as a DSL gateway/firewall using 2 network cards. One
NIC for the internal IP and other with the public IP.
We have
a SCO server that we
Title: Message
Here is my
situation:
I have a Redhat 8.0
server setup as a DSL gateway/firewall using 2 network cards. One NIC for
the internal IP and other with the public IP.
We have a SCO server
that we telnet to from our internal network. This server is setup with a modem
for when we
-Original
Message-
From: Pacheco, Michael F.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003
11:02 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RH 8.0 - 2 NICS and
routing between 2 subnets
Hi All,
I've
got a single RH 8.0 box I'm setting up as a firewall, 2 nic
echo
"1" >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
HTH
Rick
-Original
Message-
From: Pacheco, Michael F.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003
11:02 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Subject: RH 8.0 - 2 NICS and
routing between 2 subnets
Pacheco, Michael F. wrote:
Hi All,
I've got a single RH 8.0 box I'm setting up as a firewall, 2 nics in two
separate IP domains. IPTables is not running yet as I want to get
routing straight before I start iptables. Using route -add I have added
net work "A" go out eth
Hi All,
I've got a single RH 8.0 box I'm setting up as a
firewall, 2 nics in two separate IP domains. IPTables is
not running yet as I want to get routing straight before I start iptables. Using
route -add I have added net work "A" go out eth0 and network "
> -Original Message-
> From: Jon "GenKiller" " Gaudette
> Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 6:09 PM
> Subject: Re: Routing Between One Network?
>
>
> Hello all,
>
> I've set up a few Red Hat routers in my day, but have always
> had
ette wrote:
Hello all,
I've set up a few Red Hat routers in my day, but have always had to set
them up in which one subnet was routing to another. I could never
create a router in where the router was just acting like a physical
switch, with the ability to filter out unwanted packets. I
Hello all,
I've set up a few Red Hat routers in my day, but have always had to set
them up in which one subnet was routing to another. I could never
create a router in where the router was just acting like a physical
switch, with the ability to filter out unwanted packets. Is this
pos
"WTF" here...
Krum
On Sun, 2003-02-16 at 18:12, nate wrote:
> Kevin Krumwiede said:
>
> > But *routing* of packets continues to work just fine! So it can't be a
> > problem with the routing table, right?
>
> I assume your workin with this machine from t
nything on the internal or external
networks, not even as root.
But *routing* of packets continues to work just fine! So it can't be a
problem with the routing table, right?
It has got to be something simple I have overlooked. Somebody PLEASE
help me, I am pulling my hair out. :o)
Here
Kevin Krumwiede said:
> But *routing* of packets continues to work just fine! So it can't be a
> problem with the routing table, right?
I assume your workin with this machine from the console? if you can
get on the real console(e.g. keyboard, not serial) login on 2 terminals,
dis
f the name is in /etc/hosts, the lookup succeeds but
then the connection times out. If I use numeric addresses, it also
times out. I can't connect to anything on the internal or external
networks, not even as root.
But *routing* of packets continues to work just fine! So it can't be a
p
Title: Message
thanks for your help Jason and Ivan. It worked and
got me out of a sticky situation!
- Original Message -
From:
Jason
Staudenmayer
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 6:21
PM
Subject: RE: routing problem
Lisa wrote:
Hi,
If anyone out there can help me with this I'd be extremely grateful..
I have a firewall with external ip 62.17.173.173
The gateway is 62.17.173.254
We have a machine inside the firewall with private ip addresses.
I need to have a setup where this machine is visible to the ou
PROTECTED]Subject: routing
problem
Hi,
If anyone out there can help me with this I'd be
extremely grateful..
I have a firewall with external ip
62.17.173.173
The gateway is 62.17.173.254
We have a machine inside the firewall with
private ip addresses.
I need to h
Hi,
If anyone out there can help me with this I'd be
extremely grateful..
I have a firewall with external ip
62.17.173.173
The gateway is 62.17.173.254
We have a machine inside the firewall with private
ip addresses.
I need to have a setup where this machine is
visible to the outside w
dbrett wrote:
The only potential problem with this method is the network he is on,
is most likely using DHCP
Change eth0:0 to by a dynamic address, and have the iptables script run
each time the network interface starts. Modify the script with
something like this:
/sbin/ifconfig eth0:0 | gr
can make the second box appear to everyone else that it's
> directly connected to the same wire. i.e. the routing is transparrent.
>
> Here's a simple example:
> Box1 is the main Linux box, with 10.1.1.20 as it's IP address on eth0
> Box2 is the relay'd box with
up. The office
> network will not know about your network you just set-up.
>
> david
However, you can make the second box appear to everyone else that it's
directly connected to the same wire. i.e. the routing is transparrent.
Here's a simple example:
Box1 is the main Linux box,
The short answer is yes
You will need a cross over cable to connect the two computers together.
You will also have to set-up another network between the two computers.
Unfortunately, this means NATing will have to be set-up. The office
network will not know about your network you just set-up.
da
Ok, this is an easy one... Or should be.
I have a slight situation. My "cube" is short on network jacks, but long
on computers. One of them has 2 NICs in it (a RH 8.0 box). Can I use box
1 to route for box 2?
I don't need NAT, or IP Masq'ing or firewalling, or any of that. Just a
way to get 2
When I enter 'route -n' , will the result of that be representative of what I
find in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route-eth0?? Or at least should any
route statements found in that file be in the ' route-n ' query??
If so, that is not what is happening here.
--
T.L.Gervais
Coldbrook, NS
Ca
** Reply to message from Raymond van den Houwen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue,
03 Dec 2002 09:44:22 +
> Hi Mike,
>
> I already found the problem, thanks for your help:
>
> The problem was that the Linux kernel has a LOT more routing
> capability then is normally dis
Hi Mike,
I already found the problem, thanks for your help:
The problem was that the Linux kernel has a LOT more routing
capability then is normally discussed. It allows policy-based routing
and lots of other options, along with -- and this is what killed me --
reverse path filtering
On Tue, 3 Dec 2002, Andy Elacion, Jr. wrote:
> Hi Raymond,
>
> > I'm trying to get 2 IP adresses on 2 different NIC's with IP aliassing.
> > These NIC's have as default gateway the IP adress '62.150.201.1'.
> > The problem is that my routing tabl
1 - 100 of 415 matches
Mail list logo
