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 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: 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@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com