> > On Mon, 2025-03-03 at 12:30 +0100, Patrick Dupre via users wrote: > > Is bridge synonymy of "shared to other computers"? > > No, it's more of a straight through (or over, hence the name). Or, you > might think of it as a pass-through. > > > If yes, every time that I do that, it generates an address in 10.40.0.1 > > while this address has been on PC B. > > On PC A, I set the card wired to PC B manually to 10.42.0.2 with a gateway 10.42.0.1 > > (the interface shared on PC A). This works fine. > > The second interface on PC A (wired to PC C), set it to 10.42.0.3 > > I tried without a gateway and with gateway 10.42.0.2 (and 10.42.0.1) > > On PC C, I set (manually) the IP 10.42.0.5, with a gateway 10.42.0.2 or 10.42.0.3. > > THis does not work. > > Your second PC in the middle is your problem. > > > I'm wondering *how* you have two ethernet ports on some computers. Are > they plug-in cards? If so, you'd probably be best to unplug one and > put it into your gateway PC, giving it three ethernet ports, giving > this kind of network topology: On PC A and PC C, the ethernet car is actually on the mother board. On PC B, one ethernet port is on the mother board, the other one is plugeed in the PCI bus. > > internet service > | > B > / \ > A C This was the omder configuration. It was working as a charm. Now B is a laptop, and I have only one ethernet port. HEnce I have to wire PC C to PC B which has 2 ethernet ports. > B is the gateway, and only PC you have to specially configure to make > things work. > > You seem to be daisy-chaining one PC through another, through another. > This is NOT an easy thing to do well. With this kind of thing: > > internet service > 192.168.43.1 > | > | > 192.168.43.115 > PC B > 10.42.0.1 > | > | > 10.42.0.5 > PC A > 172.16.0.5 > | > | > 172.16.0.3 > PC C > > The networks on either side of B have different subnets, and B acts as > a router between them. We've already been through that. > > Now, A needs to do the same kind of thing, being a router between it > and C. And either side of it be on a different subnet, to do that. > *AND* B and A both have to manage to handle getting things between C > and B, and the internet. That's the really tricky bit! Depending on > how NAT is programmed (internally, not just your configuration), it may > not have the smarts to get things from C to B, or C to the internet. > > I'm throwing in a different subnet numerical IP addresses into that > example to strongly illustrate the idea that (normally) networks facing > each other are in the same network families, and networks on the other > side of a boundary are (normally) from a different family. > > Not that you need to be that extreme in different networking IPs to > use. You could use the 10.x.y.z scheme with 10.1/16 in one portion, > 10.2/16 in the next portion, and 10.3/16 in the final portion. I'm > just trying to make the example very clear. > > Router's use the difference between the netmasked portion of an IP > address to see what's the same, and what's not, to decide what packets > that they have to redirect through themselves to a new destination. > And packets with similar addresses (on the same network as each other) > just directly communicate with each other on the same side. > > WiFi connections add another potential problem to resolve: Whether > your WiFi router allows WiFi devices to interact, or it walls > everything off from each other. > > On the other hand, if you simply had a switch between your internet > service and the rest of your network, they'd all be on the same IP > networks and interacting with each other without you having to do > anything special. Your internet service device would be handling all > the hard work for you. > > internet service > 192.168.43.1 > | > ethernet switch device > / | \ > PC A PC B PC C > 192.168.43.2 192.168.43.3 192.168.43.4 > > And that's how my home LAN was wired for over the last decade. In my > case the "internet service" was a combined ethernet and WiFi router. > And was somewhat more like this: > > internet service > their public IP (assigned by my ISP) > | > | > my public IP (assigned by my ISP) > my ethernet & WiFi router > 192.168.1.254 WiFi--- 192.168.1.6 (phone) > | \ \ > | \ 192.168.1.5 (tablet) > ethernet switch with more \ > ports than my router has 192.168.1.4 > / | \ smart TV > / | \ > 192.168.1.1 192.168.1.2 192.168.1.3 > A PC another PC laptop > > All the hard work of getting the network to net*WORK* is done by the > router, all my devices are simply connected to it without any special > network configuration being necessary on them. > > And since your internet service is using a private LAN IP (192.168/16) > rather than a public IP, you ought to be able to do the same kind of > networking without any problems. > > Network switches are cheap, and have zero configuration. Just plug > everything in together. > Yes, this right. Again, it is a temporally configuration before I can go back the the previous configuration. Following your suggestion, I set the following On PC A, the interface for PC C with IP 10.42.1.1 with a gateway to 10.42.0.2 and on PC C IP 10.42.1.2 with a gateway to 10.42.1.1 It let me communicate between PC A and PC C, But not between PC C and PC B. Would it be possible? > > uname -rsvp > Linux 3.10.0-1160.119.1.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Tue Jun 4 14:43:51 UTC 2024 x86_64 > > Boilerplate: All unexpected mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted. > I will only get to see the messages that are posted to the mailing list. > > > -- _______________________________________________ users mailing list -- users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to users-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
