Re: Two network adapters on seperate networks problem
- From: Allen McIntosh <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 15:01:01 -0500
mikepro@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Thanks for the quick reply Allen. I did figure out that using
10.9.81.193 as my default gateway was bad, and that having 2 gateways
was also bad.
2 gateways isn't bad unless both are default gateways.
So, I removed that entry, and I think my default gateway
is now automagically set to that which I get from DHCP.
Looks like it, based on the routing table you appended.
Soo... I made a perl script to parse my /etc/hosts file and get the
IP's of the machines on the isolated network I need access to. For each
of these $ip addresses I have the script execute:
/sbin/route -v add -host $ip eth0
One host at a time is a bit ugly, but if it works...
Are you sure all those hosts are directly connected to the network attached to eth0 and hence do not need a gateway? (Maybe something is proxy ARPing for them??) Did you try pinging or otherwise contacting all of them? If you can contact them directly without a gateway, this doesn't match the original netmask you gave us.
Now I have access to all of the machines I need on the isolated
network, and public internet works too. So, I seem to have what i
wanted. Is this really the correct or proper way to do this? One
question I have, is why didn't it need me to tell it that the gateway
for those routes on eth0 was 10.9.81.193?
Depends on whether they are directly connected or not. See previous comment.
I also need to figure out how
to make those route commands persist, or run the script after bootup,
which isn't a big deal..
You can make the commands persist, but the details depend on the distribution you are using. In your shoes I would probably find the GUI tool for adding static routes, add one, figure out what file was changed, and then run the awk script.
Here is a snippet of output of route -n. I've snipped out a bunch of
lines that are similar to the first 2, and are the IP's of the other 30
or so systems on the isolated network. Does anything here look like it
will cause me any problems?
You seem to have snipped out the entry for the network attached to eth0 (169.254.0.0 doesn't count).
Kernel IP routing table.
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
10.9.71.196 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0
10.9.69.196 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0
10.9.16.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 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 10.9.16.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Two network adapters on seperate networks problem
- From: mikepro
- Re: Two network adapters on seperate networks problem
- References:
- Two network adapters on seperate networks problem
- From: mikepro
- Re: Two network adapters on seperate networks problem
- From: Allen McIntosh
- Re: Two network adapters on seperate networks problem
- From: mikepro
- Two network adapters on seperate networks problem
- Prev by Date: Squid error: Transport endpoint is not connected
- Next by Date: Network monitoring
- Previous by thread: Re: Two network adapters on seperate networks problem
- Next by thread: Re: Two network adapters on seperate networks problem
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
