[Linux-Anyway] Re: More Re: Re: eth1
- From: horrorvacui@xxxxxxx
- To: Linux-Anyway@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 22:46:45 +0100
On Sun, 9 Mar 2003 10:35:31 -0800 (PST)
Meph Istopheles <meph@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> OK. I assume this is only if a box doesn't use dhcp -- in
> other words, the boxes on the lan running static public address
> won't be effected, I hope.
No, they won't. DHCP doesn't force addresses upon machines, it sits there
and wants to be asked for one before it'll talk to anyone. From time to
time it will say to an inquiring box: "yes, you can keep the IP" - or the
opposite, but whatever it does, it wants to be asked first.
I'm not sure how this cisco thingy works, but most DHCP servers require
configuration - you need to give them an address range to serve out to the
machines, otherwise they don't know what they should do. My ADSL modem
allows configuration via a html page accessible via its pre-configured IP
address, possibly the cisco thingy has something similar.
>
> Anyway, I suppose I'd turned dhcp off on the router, as the W98
> box isn't getting an address & can ping nothing with dhcp. But,
> when I assign 10.0.0.3 to it, & make the router the gateway, it
> will ping the router, but neither 10.0.0.2 -- the Linux box
If they're connected in anything approaching a direct way - via a hub, say
- they should be able to ping each other already. If they don't, they
don't have the basic connectivity yet, which of course makes everything
else hopeless.
> (I
> find that I don't yet have routed running -- though I'd
> installed it, I don't find it, so I'll have to reinstall the
> routing package), nor can it (naturally, without routed) ping any
> public address.
Damn, I thought that kernel routing should be enough for this, but as I
tried it in my network, it wouldn't work, or it would kind of half-work.
Funny, because from my 2nd linux machine (192.168.0.5) I can ping the
network card in my main linux box (10.0.0.140) - which means that there is
some routing taking place - but not the ADSL modem (10.0.0.138) connected
to that very NIC. Strange. "Aha", thought I, my fw_masq rule might be in
the way, and flushed it - nothing. Perhaps it's the forward chain? Flushed
it, and added a new rule to ACCEPT everything - nothing. I guess that
effectively kernel routing would work, but there's something standing in
the way here - my routes, my firewall or some other obscure config. I
think I've left this mail sit in drafts waiting for me to come up with
something long enough, so I'll just send it now, but I'm still
investigating.
>
> So, with routed & whatever else is required of it (config,
> etc), this should start working, right? Am I really on to
> something now?
NB, you need routing to establish a "normal" connection between machines
in the two subnets. If the only thing you want to do with the w2k box
connectivity-wise is connect to the web, masquerade would suffice, as it
does the routing part as well.
Cheers
--
Horror Vacui
Registered Linux user #257714
Go get yourself... counted: http://counter.li.org/
- and keep following the GNU.
To unsubcribe send e-mail with the word unsubscribe in the body to:
Linux-Anyway-Request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?body=unsubscribe
Other related posts:
