Dear Pan'ko, Thanks for your suggestion and sorry to reply late! I did read that chapter 10 before I start doing this, and I have tried your suggested configuration, but the same problem remains. The difference between my configuration and chapter 10 is that my two connections are different: one is direct connection, and the other is through a gateway. (I did try the configuration in Chapter 10, and it works) It seems to me that when packets are forwarded by the teql0 interface to each local Ethernet cards, the routing is still based on the routing entry for the teql0_IP address in the routing table, instead of being based on the IP of the local Ethernet interface. Since I can't both specify the gateway address and not specify it for the teql0 at the same time, there is only one link that teql finds working and pass packets to at each time. But it sounds unreasonable for TEQL to be implemented that way. Now I don't use a gateway since teql doesn't work in this heteogeneous case. I configured the machine in the middle as a bridge to avoid the routing problem. (And I switched to NetEm instead of NIST Net, because NetEm can run on a bridge) Please let me know if you have any other suggestions! Thanks again for your kind help! Best, -Ji -----Original Message----- From: Pan'ko Alexander [mailto:pankoAA@xxxxxxxxx] Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2005 1:36 AM To: Li, Ji Subject: Re: urgent TEQL problem On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 16:01:50 -0400 "Li, Ji" <ji.li3@xxxxxx> wrote: Read chapter 10 of http://lartc.org/lartc.html, please. As for me, you have very strange routing and subnets configuration. Try to do teql on else subnet /31 My variant: Node 1: - eth0: 16.119.144.21 - eth1: 16.119.144.33 - teql0: 192.168.1.0 Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.254 UH 0 0 0 teql0 16.119.144.27 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0 16.119.144.32 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 eth1 16.119.144.64 16.119.144.35 255.255.255.224 UG 0 0 0 eth1 0.0.0.0 16.119.144.35 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 Node 2: - eth0: 16.119.144.27 - eth1: 16.119.144.65 - teql0: 192.168.1.1 Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 16.119.144.21 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.254 UH 0 0 0 teql0 16.119.144.32 16.119.144.67 255.255.255.224 UG 0 0 0 eth1 16.119.144.64 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 eth1 0.0.0.0 16.119.144.67 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 Try this. Maybe when ping goes to 16.119.144.66 it do not undestand clearly if need to use gw. Now you will be able ping 192.168.19.1 See example http://lartc.org/lartc.html Take in maind that icmp may have a special status, try other protocols, check firewall rules. Please reply. Good luck. > One more thing to add is that when I "ping 16.119.144.66" from Node1 > (16.119.144.66 is the teql0 of Node2), all messages I saw from > Node1.eth1 are ARP messages "Who has 16.119.144.66? Tell 16.119.144.33". > > Thanks, > -Ji > > -----Original Message----- > From: lartc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:lartc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Li, Ji > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 3:45 PM > To: Pan'ko Alexander; lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: jli@xxxxxxx > Subject: RE: urgent TEQL problem > > Thanks for your advice. The routing tables are shown below. Your help > is highly appreciated! > > > Topology: Node1.eth0 and Node2.eth0 are directly connected. Node1.eth1 > is connected to Gateway.eth0, and Node2.eth1 is connected to > Gateway.eth1. > The problem is: When I "ping 16.119.144.66" from Node1, all ping > request go to Node1.eth0, no packet goes to Node1.eth1. > > Node 1: > - eth0: 16.119.144.21 > - eth1: 16.119.144.33 > - teql0: 16.119.144.34 > > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use > Iface > 16.119.144.66 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 > teql0 > 16.119.144.27 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 > eth0 > 16.119.144.32 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 > eth1 > 16.119.144.64 16.119.144.35 255.255.255.224 UG 0 0 0 > eth1 > 0.0.0.0 16.119.144.35 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 > eth1 > > > Node 2: > - eth0: 16.119.144.27 > - eth1: 16.119.144.65 > - teql0: 16.119.144.66 > > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use > Iface > 16.119.144.21 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 > eth0 > 16.119.144.34 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 > teql0 > 16.119.144.32 16.119.144.67 255.255.255.224 UG 0 0 0 > eth1 > 16.119.144.64 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 > eth1 > 0.0.0.0 16.119.144.67 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 > eth1 > > > Gateway: > - eth0: 16.119.144.35 > - eth1: 16.119.144.67 > > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use > Iface > 16.119.144.32 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 > eth0 > 16.119.144.64 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 > eth1 > 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 > lo > > > Best regards, > -Ji > > -----Original Message----- > From: lartc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:lartc-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Pan'ko Alexander > Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 2:51 PM > To: lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: urgent TEQL problem > > > I advice you to do not discribe your problem, but give your routing > rules on both sides. I think here is your problem. > > -- > With best regards, Pan'ko Alexander. > pankoAA@xxxxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list > LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc > _______________________________________________ > LARTC mailing list > LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc -- С наилучшими пожеланиями, Панько Александр. With best regards, Pan'ko Alexander. pankoAA@xxxxxxxxx http://interdon.net/~panko/ ICQ 231647363 _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lartc
