Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3729 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] Routing - help required
- From: Basil Fowler <bjfowler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2003 20:47:56 +0000
- Message-id: <200306022047.56404.bjfowler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
The end machine is 192.168.42.2
While I agree that in a working environment the machines should be on the same
subnet, for sanity's sake during this investigation, I have given each of my
two machines a completely different number to avoid confusion for myself and
others :)
Machine 192.168.42.2 has a routing table (given by netstat -rn)
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface
192.168.42.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
0.0.0.0 192.168.42.2 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
It is running RedHat 7.0 with a late model 2.2 kernel.
The corresponding output from machine 10.0.0.1 has vales of 40 for the MSS
column. Is this significant?
Another discovery that might be significant. I was studying the man page for
netstat, when I noticed the option -M for listing masqueraded connections.
Seeing that I had input a MASQUERADE line in iptables on machine 10.0.0.1, I
was surprised to read the following output:
netstat: no support for `ip_masquerade' on this system.
Is this relevant?
Thanks in advance for everyone's help.
Basil Fowler
On Monday 02 Jun 2003 17:14, Anders Johansson wrote:
> On Monday 02 June 2003 19.07, Basil Fowler wrote:
> > Thank you for your advice - but the system still doesn't work. All I get
is
> > when I ping the end of the chain from machine 192.168.42.42 is
>
> I'm going to assume you meant 192.168.42.2. If I'm wrong in that
assummption,
> you need to explain more
>
> >
> > Destination host Unreachable
>
> What is the output of "route -n" on 192.168.42.2? Does it have 10.0.0.1 as
the
> default gateway?
>
> And while we're on the subject, it's usually a good idea, if only for
sanity,
> to keep machines that are physically connected on the same subnet. Mixing
> 10.* addresses with 192.168.* addresses can be made to work, but I can't see
> a good reason for it.
>
>
>
> --
> Check the headers for your unsubscription address
> For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
> Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
> Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@xxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
While I agree that in a working environment the machines should be on the same
subnet, for sanity's sake during this investigation, I have given each of my
two machines a completely different number to avoid confusion for myself and
others :)
Machine 192.168.42.2 has a routing table (given by netstat -rn)
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface
192.168.42.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
0.0.0.0 192.168.42.2 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
It is running RedHat 7.0 with a late model 2.2 kernel.
The corresponding output from machine 10.0.0.1 has vales of 40 for the MSS
column. Is this significant?
Another discovery that might be significant. I was studying the man page for
netstat, when I noticed the option -M for listing masqueraded connections.
Seeing that I had input a MASQUERADE line in iptables on machine 10.0.0.1, I
was surprised to read the following output:
netstat: no support for `ip_masquerade' on this system.
Is this relevant?
Thanks in advance for everyone's help.
Basil Fowler
On Monday 02 Jun 2003 17:14, Anders Johansson wrote:
> On Monday 02 June 2003 19.07, Basil Fowler wrote:
> > Thank you for your advice - but the system still doesn't work. All I get
is
> > when I ping the end of the chain from machine 192.168.42.42 is
>
> I'm going to assume you meant 192.168.42.2. If I'm wrong in that
assummption,
> you need to explain more
>
> >
> > Destination host Unreachable
>
> What is the output of "route -n" on 192.168.42.2? Does it have 10.0.0.1 as
the
> default gateway?
>
> And while we're on the subject, it's usually a good idea, if only for
sanity,
> to keep machines that are physically connected on the same subnet. Mixing
> 10.* addresses with 192.168.* addresses can be made to work, but I can't see
> a good reason for it.
>
>
>
> --
> Check the headers for your unsubscription address
> For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@xxxxxxxx
> Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com
> Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@xxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
| < Previous | Next > |