On Tuesday 06 November 2001 06.34, W.D.McKinney wrote:
I have a NIC connected to a DSL model with a provided staic IP.
I have a 2nd NIC in the same box, that uses the static address of the first NIC as it's gateway.
I don't know what this means. A NIC doesn't have a gateway. A routing table has. In your first mail you sent a working routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 209.193.48.254 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 209.193.48.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 209.193.48.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0
The gateway field means that if there is a valid adress there, the packets are to be sent there for further routing. If it is, as it is here, 0.0.0.0, they'll just be transmitted to the interface without alteration. If both gateway and iface are empty/invalid, you have a corrupt routing table. If your routing table has (and from your description it sounds very much so) 209.193.48.40 in the gateway field of the entry that has eth1 in the iface column, then this cannot ever work, since there is no such ip number on the other side of that interface. This functionality is what ip forwarding is for. And from the routing table you give that I quoted above, it looks like it is simply being ignored. Now, here all packages that match 209.193.48.0/24 are sent to eth0, all packages that match 192.168.0.0/24 are sent to eth1, and all packages that don't match either are sent to the ppp0 interface. How does the routing table differ after a reboot?
I am not ip-forwarding yet in this configuration.
The routing table in SuSE is /etc/route.conf which is set by YaST. If I input into YaST, it should be translated in /etc/route.conf. This does not happen correctly.
Then what happens? It would be easier to solve if you post the numbers instead of trying to describe it. regards Anders