TCLUG Archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [TCLUG:10119] IP Routing question
As Ben already pointed out, what is /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
showing. It should be '1' in order to enable packet forwarding.
# echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
Should do the trick for you.
Regards
- Karl
P.S. only since i didn't see this specific answer.
On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Ben Kochie wrote:
> what is the default gateway set to on bigdaddy and dan?
> also.. what is
> cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
>
>
> Thank You,
> Ben Kochie (ben@nerp.net)
>
> *-----------------------* [ - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - ]
> | Unix/Linux Consulting | [ Haiku Error Message: ]
> | PC/Mac Repair | [ Chaos reigns within. ]
> | Networking | [ Reflect, repent, and reboot. ]
> | http://nerp.net | [ Order shall return. ]
> *-----------------------* [ - * - * - * - * - * - * - * - ]
>
> "Unix is user friendly, Its just picky about its friends."
>
> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999, Ry4an Brase wrote:
>
> > I spent many hours last night pulling my hair out over this one and
> > hopefully someone can help:
> >
> > I've got a box (cerberus) with two NICs. Each NIC has a cross-over cable
> > that connects it to antoher nic in a differnt box (bigdaddy and dan). The
> > cerberus/bigdaddy link is 100Mb and has LinkSys PCI cards at each end of
> > the crossover. The cerberus/dan link is 10Mb and has D Link22x (NE2000
> > clone) ISA cards at each end of the crossover.
> >
> > I've got the 100Mb net set up with IPs in the 192.168.100.x range, and the
> > 10Mb set up with IPs in the (you guessed it) 192.168.10.x range. I've got
> > the two end nodes (bigdaddy & dan) set up with nothing in their routing
> > tables except an entry that points the default route towards cerberus.
> >
> > cerberus (the one w/ the two NICs) has a routing table like this:
> >
> > Kernel IP routing table
> > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Iface
> > 192.168.100.1 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 eth1
> > 192.168.10.1 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 eth0
> > 192.168.100.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 eth1
> > 192.168.10.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 eth0
> > 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 lo
> >
> > So nearly as I can tell that should be all that's needed for things to
> > route to each other.
> >
> > Just for completeness here's the ipchains config on cerberus
> >
> > Chain input (policy ACCEPT):
> > Chain forward (policy ACCEPT):
> > Chain output (policy ACCEPT):
> >
> > Here are the ifconfig entries for the two NICs in cerberus:
> >
> > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:80:C8:FA:72:9C
> > inet addr:192.168.10.1 Bcast:192.168.10.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
> > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> > RX packets:9056 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > TX packets:31 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
> > Interrupt:3 Base address:0x280
> >
> > eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:CC:28:45:A2
> > inet addr:192.168.100.1 Bcast:192.168.100.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
> > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> > RX packets:6426 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > TX packets:73 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
> > Interrupt:11 Base address:0xe800
> >
> > There, with all that as background, let me tell you what is or isn't
> > working.
> >
> > WORKING:
> > pinging cerberus to bigdaddy
> > pinging cerberus to dan
> > pinging dan to cerberus
> > pinging bigdaddy to cerberus
> > pinging bigdaddy to the 'far' NIC in cerberus
> > (ex: 192.168.100.3 (bigdaddy) to 192.168.10.1)
> > pinging dan to the 'far' NIC in cerberus
> > (ex: 192.168.10.2 (dan) to 192.168.100.1)
> >
> > NOTWORKING:
> > pinging bigdaddy to dan
> > pinging dan to bigdaddy
> >
> >
> > NOTES:
> >
> > I'm pretty sure the default routes on the end nodes (dan and bigdaddy) are
> > ok, and the boxen do route all requests through their NICs (flicker in the
> > activity lights).
> >
> > GUESSES:
> >
> > Perhaps I need something to tell cerberus it's ok to connect the two?
> > Soemthing in the forward rule? A 1 written to a file in /proc? A blood
> > sacrifice?
> >
> > Cerberus is running whatever kernel comes with rh 6.1. Ifn' I get this
> > working I'll build up a kernel that's optimized for routing, but I didn't
> > think it was necessary to get it to work at all.
> >
> > ADVICE I'VE RECEIVED:
> >
> > "Only high end NICs will hand off packets for routing. Put Intel, 3COM,
> > or (real) NE2000 NICs in cerberus." If that's true why the hell wouldn't
> > O'Reilly's _TCP Network Administration_ mention that little catch? If I
> > can't hear any better suggestions I'll get new NICs, but if (and I may be
> > wrong) routing is done at the OS level what does it matter to the NIC if
> > the packet will be given to antoher NIC or used at the host?
> >
> > Thanks in advance for any clock cycles you can waste on this,
> > Ry4an
> >
> > --
> > Ry4an Brase - http://ry4an.org - 612-623-9946
> > 'If you're not a rebel when you're 20 you've got no heart; if
> > you're not establishment when you're 30 you've got no brain.'
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: tclug-list-unsubscribe@mn-linux.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: tclug-list-help@mn-linux.org
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tclug-list-unsubscribe@mn-linux.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tclug-list-help@mn-linux.org
>