On Tue, May 02, 2000 at 01:25:12PM +1000, erich wrote:
>
> I then have a question, could the following setup work? ( I am not
> syaing it is the best)
>
> Machine 1: internet gateway
> PPP0: 139.x.x.x, netmask ?
> eth0: 203.x.x.1 netmask 255.255.255.0
> default route GW = 139.x.x.x ppp0
> route add net 192.168.0.0 eht0
> route add net 203.x.x.0 eht0
I don't think you need to add the 203.x.x.0 route, it gets made automatically
when you configure eth0 with its ip address (with kernel 2.2.x)
> which gets connected to the local hub.
>
> On the same hub:
>
> Machine 2: NT box with web server
> eth0: 203.x.x.2 netmask 255.255.255.0
> dafault route GW=139.x.x.x eth0
> I don't know how to add routes to NT Machines
For this machine GW would be the ip address of Machine 1's
eth0 interface, 203.x.x.1
> Machine 3 and more on the same hub but with private addresses
> eth0: 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0
> route add net 203.x.x.0 eht0
> default route GW = 139.x.x.x eth0
This isn't going to work.
I think it would be neater if you gave Machine 1's eth0 interface
two ip addresses, the valid 203.x.x.1 address and a private 192.168.0.1,
then setup masquerading on machine 1, etc. Lots of fun.
Machine 3 would look like
eth0: 192.168.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.0
default route GW = 192.168.0.1 eth0
--
chesty
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
