Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (2271 mails)

[Sid Boyce <sboyce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Preston Crawford wrote:

> On Thu, 2004-04-08 at 01:49, Damon Jebb wrote:
>  
>
> > <SNIP>
> > But I'm not routing between the networks. So I'm confused. I simply have
> > a computer that happens to be on two networks. Does that still  make it
> > a router? And if so, what is the proper routing configuration to  make
> > this work?
> > </SNIP>
> >
> > That depends on whether machines on one network need to see machines on
> > the other.  If they do then the machine that straddles the networks has
> > to be a router for the two networks, and incidentally the machines on
> > both networks will need to be able to talk to each other because the
> > communication is in effect a conversation.  Do any machines that connect
> > to Samba via SSH need to see or access any other 10. network machines?
> >    
>
> No. There is no communication between the 10 and 192 networks. That's
> why I keep using the term "stradle". It's the best way I can think of to
> describe this situation. This server serves out (via samba) files to two
> different networks. But computers on each network never talk to
> computers on the other network. And, in fact, they shouldn't. That's why
> they're separate networks. The 10 network box should see the server (and
> there is only 1) and the 192 boxes should see the server, but they
> should never see each other. Hope that clears that up.
>
>  
>
> > <SNIP>
> > The sticking point is this. The 10 network on the server is not like
> > DIRECTLY connected to the machine trying to get to the samba share. And
> > there's a little indirection on the SSH side, because we're trying to
> > get to SSH via a virtual server on our firewall (i.e. the firewall says
> > all SSH requests for me get passed onto this internal server). So I'm
> > guess that the fact that it's configured as described above, could
> > contribute to the problem I'm having. I just need to figure out the
> > proper routing configuration to enable both things (Samba over the 10
> > and SSH over the 192 through the firewall) to work at the same time.
> > </SNIP>
> >
> > So, the Samba server is not on this machine?  It's somewhere on the 10.
> > network?  That would explain a lot.  You need to understand that this
> >    
>
> No, I must have poorly worded that. Samba IS on this machine, the
> server. It's on this machine and serving itself out to two different
> networks, 10 and 192. What I was trying to say is that the computer
> trying to get to the samba share, the client to the server in this case,
> isn't AS directly connected to the server as the clients on the 192
> network are. I threw that in (and it probably caused confusion) just in
> case that was part of the problem.
>
>  
>
> > server is indeed routing.  You then need to setup routing so that it
> > works between the networks.  You could put the routes to the two
> > networks in the expert mode in YaST.  They will look like...
> >    
>
> So either way, though, there is no routing taking place here. The server
> simply serves two networks. The 192 and the 10. No computer ever talks
> to a computer on the other network and visa versa. They simply all talk
> to the same server via different networks. 
>
> Preston
>
>
>  
This looks like it should be simple or I have probably missed some of 
the original point of the question , example from "man route".

route add -net 192.56.76.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev eth0
             adds a route to the network 192.56.76.x via "eth0". The 
Class C netmask modifier is not
             really  necessary  here  because  192.*  is a Class C IP 
address. The word "dev" can be
             omitted here.

Substituting the true values should allow 192 subnet to go via eth0 and 
10 subnet via eth1 or which ever way round is desired. If that proves 
successful, then a closer look at YaST or config files should allow them 
to be set  permanently.
Regards
Sid.