El 19/12/2010, a las 23:15, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx> escribiÃ:
> On 12/19/10 4:08 PM, Josà MarÃa Terry JimÃnez wrote:
>> Les Mikesell escribiÃ:
>>> On 12/19/10 2:30 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> This doesn't make much sense without a route. Can you try a traceroute to the
>>>>>>>> fedora box address from the 192.168.236.80 box to see how/why it gets there
>>
>>>>>>>> Hope it helps (all addresses are 192.168. Trimmed to compact the schema):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ---------- ---------- -----------
>>>>>>>> ! 1.3 !------!1.100 ! !gw 236.21!
>>>>>>>> ! gw 1.1 ! ! ! 236.74!-----! 236.80 !
>>>>>>>> ---------- ! ! gw 1.1 ! ! -----------
>>>>>>>> ! ---------- !
>>>>>>>> ! !
>>>>>>>> [Router1] [Router2]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Router 1 is a PFSense and its IP is 192.168.1.1
>>>>>>>> Router 2 is "something" (it is managed by other person, and i think is
>>>>>>>> somekind of win server) and IP is 192.168.236.21
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>> This still doesn't explain why the 192.168.236.80 box can return packets to the
>>> fedora at 192.168.1.3 when you said it didn't have a route going through
>>> 192.168.236.74. Can you check what routes you do have on 192.168.236.80 and
>>> traceroute from there to 192.168.1.3?
>>>
>>>
>> Apologies by confusing you. I forgot that "the other" CentOS had 2 NICs, this is
>> the machine where i began these tests. It's in a remote site and now when
>> listing the routes remembered that.
>>
>> It's conected to the 1. network with a second NIC and IP: 192.168.1.102. Replies
>> must be return by that iface, really?
>
> Yes, with rare exceptions routing always happens with each hop making the
> decision to use the interface that has the best route towards the destination,
> and that would have a route automatically added for anything within the netmask.
>
Thanks by your help, now i understand this a bit better,
Best
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
