Re: Need some help in Routing in Linux

On 23 Nov 2006, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in article
<1164347736.343517.284080@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, GS wrote:

we have two different subnets, 192.168.1(ADSL-Router) and 192.168.2
(regular SOHO router), this second router is connected to one of the port
on first router and assigned Second Routers wan port as static IP addr
(192.168.1.128), from 192.168.2 subnet, we can login to all machines in
192.168.1 subnet, whereas from 192.168.1 to 192.168.2, we can't login
or ping at all, I added a route on 192.168.1 subnet, stull I can't
access 2nd subnet machines, on first subnet, I added route using below
command, also route looklike, all machines on both subnets are Linux
machines only.

I'm sure some of those commas are meant to be periods. OK, all Linux
boxes. Ignoring for the moment any routes to the world and the loopback
interface, your routing tables should show two routes. On 192.168.1.0, it
would look like this:

Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
192.168.2.0 192.168.1.128 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0

while on 192.168.2.0 it should look like this:

Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
192.168.1.0 192.168.2.254 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0

This is to say that one network is local, and the other has to be reached
through a gateway. To answer your followup question, the 169.254.0.0
route is for windoze ZeroConf, and can be ignored. If it bothers you,
there is a variable in your network configuration files that contains the
letters 'ZeroConf' that can be set to disable this. In RedHat/Fedora, this
is "NOZEROCONF=yes" in the /etc/sysconfig/network configuration file.

Now, you say

from 192.168.2 subnet, we can login to all machines in 192.168.1 subnet,
whereas from 192.168.1 to 192.168.2, we can't login or ping at all,

What happens when you try? What is the exact error message? If you can
login _FROM_ 192.168.2.x _TO_ 192.168.1.x, then there is no networking
problem. This is more likely a firewall or permissions issue, so look at
the output of 'netstat -atupn' and '/sbin/iptables -L' on the systems on
both networks. How do they differ?

Old guy

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: routing, was: Re: <blank subject>
    ... > AND a /28 subnet over a second connection? ... your ISP will route IP traffic for the subnet to you. ... you might want to consider how to have machines on your ...
    (freebsd-questions)
  • Re: OpenBoot Prom / go Question
    ... Ok if your E250 is on the 10.10.7 subnet, and your other machines are on ... to have a router that sits on both networks, ...
    (comp.unix.solaris)
  • Re: connecting to machine on another subdomain on same network
    ... And how do I get the machines to "know" how to use these additional ... They know to use these additional machines to reach the other subnet ... You add a route to each machine that tells them this. ... is already their default route a gateway between the two networks. ...
    (comp.os.linux.networking)
  • Re: dmz routing problem
    ... your solution to reach the 10.0.0.0./24 machines ... in this subnet don't have set the 10.0.0.10 as ... default route. ... > probably need to employ static routing or a routing protocol or switch ...
    (comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc)
  • Re: HSRP and Policy Route
    ... You can see in your config that both ... routers think they are the local owner of the 5.1 subnet, ... now I am taking only default route from the ISP's but I guess if I ... of the subnet as you are saying that when Core 2 owns the 5.X network, ...
    (comp.dcom.sys.cisco)