routing problem(?)
in [Linux Networking]
|
From: adamfulman on 5 Aug 2006 07:03 Hi, I'm trying to allow a unix machine to access the internet from its subnet. My network looks like this: unix machine's ip(ethernet):192.168.2.5 | | edimax wifi router (not connected to the internet)ip: 192.168.2.1 | | Windows XP machine's ip(wifi):192.168.2.55 Windows XP machine's ip(ethernet):192.168.3.70 | | edimax hub (which keeps the internet connection active) | | router (with internet connection) (10.X.X.X) I added route add -inet 192.168.3.0 -netmask 255.255.255.0 192.168.2.55 to the unix machine and now the XP 2nd nic answers to ping (192.168.3.70) but i cant ping any other internet ip like 72.14.221.147 even after adding route add -inet 0.0.0.0 -netmask 0.0.0.0 192.168.2.55 or route add -inet 0.0.0.0 -netmask 0.0.0.0 192.168.3.70 I enabled ip forwarding on the XP (registry key) but still no luck. What am I doing wrong? Could it be something with the Edimax wifi routing table? Many Thanks, Adam
From: Floyd L. Davidson on 5 Aug 2006 07:58 adamfulman(a)yahoo.com wrote: >Hi, > >I'm trying to allow a unix machine to access the internet from its >subnet. > >My network looks like this: > >unix machine's ip(ethernet):192.168.2.5 > | > | >edimax wifi router (not connected to the internet)ip: 192.168.2.1 > | > | >Windows XP machine's ip(wifi):192.168.2.55 Consider what you have above (subnet 192.168.2.xx) as a separate entity. Your unix machine needs to be able to route packets to both of those IP addresses, and needs *no* other specific routes! Except of course a "default" that says anything that isn't already routed to one of those, should go to 192.168.2.55, because that is your gateway to the Internet. (And that WinXP machine *must* be configured to do IP forwarding.) >Windows XP machine's ip(ethernet):192.168.3.70 > | > | > edimax hub (which keeps the internet connection active) > | > | > router (with internet connection) (10.X.X.X) > >I added >route add -inet 192.168.3.0 -netmask 255.255.255.0 192.168.2.55 Your route commands are all nonsense. I'm not sure what you are confusing them with, but "-inet" for example is not a valid option for route, and you've placed an IP address where the device should be identified. What you want are these two commands, Note that you cannot route traffic directly to 192.168.3.x addresses because there is no interface connected to your subnet that has such an address. It may go out on the wire, but there is nothing there. (I have no idea what you actually did have set up to get ping, but it certainly wasn't that.) Here's what you probably want: route add -net 192.168.2.0 -netmask 255.255.255.0 eth0 route default -gw 192.158.2.55 eth0 The first command directs all 192.168.2.n packets to eth0. The second command directs *everything else* to IP address 192.158.2.55 (which of course causes it to go via eth0 too, but with an ethernet address for the interface on 192.158.2.55). (If eth0 is not the correct device name, change it to whatever the name for that interface is.) .... >Could it be something with the Edimax wifi routing table? I'm not familiar with an Edimax wifi router... Typically wifi routers have an ethernet switch, with the wifi device and 4 ethernet ports on the switch. No routing is done. Typically they have a WLAN port too, and that port requires routing. Hence, if your ethernet is connected to one of the 4 ports, you do not need any special routing; however, if it is connected to the WLAN port you *do* need to set up the router's tables to handle what you want. -- Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: adamfulman on 5 Aug 2006 12:23 Hi Floyd, I entered the route commands as written but did not get further than before. i can ping 192.168.3.70, but thats it. Thanks, Adam Floyd L. Davidson wrote: > adamfulman(a)yahoo.com wrote: > >Hi, > > > >I'm trying to allow a unix machine to access the internet from its > >subnet. > > > >My network looks like this: > > > >unix machine's ip(ethernet):192.168.2.5 > > | > > | > >edimax wifi router (not connected to the internet)ip: 192.168.2.1 > > | > > | > >Windows XP machine's ip(wifi):192.168.2.55 > > Consider what you have above (subnet 192.168.2.xx) as a separate > entity. Your unix machine needs to be able to route packets to > both of those IP addresses, and needs *no* other specific routes! > > Except of course a "default" that says anything that isn't already > routed to one of those, should go to 192.168.2.55, because that is > your gateway to the Internet. (And that WinXP machine *must* be > configured to do IP forwarding.) > > > >Windows XP machine's ip(ethernet):192.168.3.70 > > | > > | > > edimax hub (which keeps the internet connection active) > > | > > | > > router (with internet connection) (10.X.X.X) > > > >I added > >route add -inet 192.168.3.0 -netmask 255.255.255.0 192.168.2.55 > > Your route commands are all nonsense. I'm not sure what you > are confusing them with, but "-inet" for example is not a valid > option for route, and you've placed an IP address where the > device should be identified. What you want are these two commands, > > Note that you cannot route traffic directly to 192.168.3.x > addresses because there is no interface connected to your subnet > that has such an address. It may go out on the wire, but there > is nothing there. (I have no idea what you actually did have set > up to get ping, but it certainly wasn't that.) > > Here's what you probably want: > > route add -net 192.168.2.0 -netmask 255.255.255.0 eth0 > route default -gw 192.158.2.55 eth0 > > The first command directs all 192.168.2.n packets to eth0. The > second command directs *everything else* to IP address > 192.158.2.55 (which of course causes it to go via eth0 too, but > with an ethernet address for the interface on 192.158.2.55). > > (If eth0 is not the correct device name, change it to whatever > the name for that interface is.) > > ... > > >Could it be something with the Edimax wifi routing table? > > I'm not familiar with an Edimax wifi router... > > Typically wifi routers have an ethernet switch, with the wifi > device and 4 ethernet ports on the switch. No routing is > done. Typically they have a WLAN port too, and that port > requires routing. Hence, if your ethernet is connected to one > of the 4 ports, you do not need any special routing; however, if > it is connected to the WLAN port you *do* need to set up the > router's tables to handle what you want. > > -- > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
From: apoorvkul on 7 Aug 2006 04:35 In the router with internet connection add a route to 192.168.2.0 network thru 192.168.3.70 so that it can route back the ping replies route add -net 192.168.2.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.3.70 adamfulman(a)yahoo.com wrote: > Hi Floyd, > > I entered the route commands as written but did not get further than > before. > i can ping 192.168.3.70, but thats it. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > Floyd L. Davidson wrote: > > adamfulman(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >Hi, > > > > > >I'm trying to allow a unix machine to access the internet from its > > >subnet. > > > > > >My network looks like this: > > > > > >unix machine's ip(ethernet):192.168.2.5 > > > | > > > | > > >edimax wifi router (not connected to the internet)ip: 192.168.2.1 > > > | > > > | > > >Windows XP machine's ip(wifi):192.168.2.55 > > > > Consider what you have above (subnet 192.168.2.xx) as a separate > > entity. Your unix machine needs to be able to route packets to > > both of those IP addresses, and needs *no* other specific routes! > > > > Except of course a "default" that says anything that isn't already > > routed to one of those, should go to 192.168.2.55, because that is > > your gateway to the Internet. (And that WinXP machine *must* be > > configured to do IP forwarding.) > > > > > > >Windows XP machine's ip(ethernet):192.168.3.70 > > > | > > > | > > > edimax hub (which keeps the internet connection active) > > > | > > > | > > > router (with internet connection) (10.X.X.X) > > > > > >I added > > >route add -inet 192.168.3.0 -netmask 255.255.255.0 192.168.2.55 > > > > Your route commands are all nonsense. I'm not sure what you > > are confusing them with, but "-inet" for example is not a valid > > option for route, and you've placed an IP address where the > > device should be identified. What you want are these two commands, > > > > Note that you cannot route traffic directly to 192.168.3.x > > addresses because there is no interface connected to your subnet > > that has such an address. It may go out on the wire, but there > > is nothing there. (I have no idea what you actually did have set > > up to get ping, but it certainly wasn't that.) > > > > Here's what you probably want: > > > > route add -net 192.168.2.0 -netmask 255.255.255.0 eth0 > > route default -gw 192.158.2.55 eth0 > > > > The first command directs all 192.168.2.n packets to eth0. The > > second command directs *everything else* to IP address > > 192.158.2.55 (which of course causes it to go via eth0 too, but > > with an ethernet address for the interface on 192.158.2.55). > > > > (If eth0 is not the correct device name, change it to whatever > > the name for that interface is.) > > > > ... > > > > >Could it be something with the Edimax wifi routing table? > > > > I'm not familiar with an Edimax wifi router... > > > > Typically wifi routers have an ethernet switch, with the wifi > > device and 4 ethernet ports on the switch. No routing is > > done. Typically they have a WLAN port too, and that port > > requires routing. Hence, if your ethernet is connected to one > > of the 4 ports, you do not need any special routing; however, if > > it is connected to the WLAN port you *do* need to set up the > > router's tables to handle what you want. > > > > -- > > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> > > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd(a)apaflo.com
|
Pages: 1 Prev: there is a slight delat in ping reply Next: Web based Squid |