On 09/04/12 12:18 PM, James B. Byrne wrote:
> There are presently two subnets on the lan, 192.168.209.0 and
> 192.168.209.0. I believe that the present netmask is correct in these
> circumstances.
um, those are both the same? I assume you meant one of them to be
different?
You are correct. I mistyped.
I have host A with eth0[aaa.bbb.ccc.A] and eth1[192.168.216.A]
I have host B with eth0[aaa.bbb.ccc.B] and eth1[192.168.209.B]
and I have host C as the gateway with eth0 being the WAN and eth1
being the LAN. Eth1 on C has the address [aaa.bbb.ccc.1] assigned to
it and has the alias [192.168.0.1] as well.
I want traffic from 192.168.216.A addressed to 192.168.209.B to go to
eth1 on B. Instead it goes to Eth0 on C where it dies as one would
expect.
I am not terribly familiar with routing so I expect that I am doing
something wrong that is obvious yet invisible to me. This is an
experimental set up so that I can explore these issues before
inflicting them on my unsuspecting users.
--
*** E-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel ***
James B. Byrne mailto:ByrneJB@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Harte & Lyne Limited http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada L8E 3C3
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
