James B. Byrne wrote:
>
> 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.
>
could you show the result of the route command on host C?
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
