Posted in netdev and netfilter vger's mailing list, and now in linux-net too. Hi, First, thanks for all job done on that community in particular, and the others free ones in a more general way. I don't know where should be the right place of this remark and put this in netdev and netfilter vger's mailing list : hope this will be usefull. Legacy : We, at my house work, have a non-free software which can be reach from network : client/server architecture. I will call it "network soft". For obscure reasons, we have 2 networks and 2 adsl box for this purpose : let's say that network1 is a 192.168.0.0/24 with an adsl modem gateway (gateway1 : 192.168.0.1) and network2 is a 192.168.1.0/24 with another adsl modem gateway (gateway2 : 192.168.1.1). Network1 and network2 are Virtualy Laned by an hp switch and acts like 2 physically separed networks : all is ethernet however. "Network Soft" is on network1. People who wants to use it from network2 must reach network1 via gateway1 and gateway2, using outside network1 and network2 links. Thoses who are familar with "Fernand Renaud" jokes will understand the "22 à Asnières" situation. Changes to the legacy : We are not allowed to make an unique network, so I took a PII with two ethernet cards and put a linux box on that 600 BogoMips ! Two Ip adress on the PII box : one for network1 (eth0 : 192.168.0.2) and one for network2 (eth1 : 192.168.1.2). I read howtos and other material and found that the maintainer of Debian didn't compile the routing ease in iptable and says that this is for iproute2. Ok, I read more about this and go on. All I want is that packets from network2 and destined to "network soft" and packets from "network soft" and destined to network2 goes across the ethernet cards on the PII box. All other packets are respectively send to the two gateways : gateway1 for network1 and gateway2 for network2. _*_ INFORMATION _*_ : Saying to the PII box that all traffic from network1 to outside world uses gateway1 and that all traffic from network2 to outside world uses gateway2 was really easy and simple. I played with default route on clients on network1 and network2 and two rules in iproute2 : one for network1 and another for network2, less than ten minutes ! I surprisingly spent many hours to join the to networks via the PII box. All I have to say is that Packets from "network soft" and destined to network2 must go accross from ethernet1 in network1 to ethernet2 in network2 and reciprocaly for packets from network2 destined to "network soft". So, why that wasted time ? What does I forgot ? I re-read many times iproute2 man pages and It didn't work as I expected. I first make two routing commands : ip route from 192.168.0.0/24 to 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.1.2 table network1 ip route from 192.168.1.0/24 to 192.168.0.0/24 via 192.168.0.2 table network2 Which does _not_ work. I supposed that linux was able to see that "from 192.168.0.0/24 to 192.168.1.0/24" concerning all packets, whatever they came in ethernet1 (network1) or in ethernet2 (network2), adjusting the route when according to cause 192.168.0.2 is on ethernet1 and 192.168.1.2 is on ethernet2. I added dev after the from/to directive but the device was conserved for the next via argument and ip says that there were no such device so I added after "via" the name of the concerned interface, and says something like : ip route from 192.168.0.0/24 to 192.168.1.0/24 via 192.168.1.2 dev eth1 table network1 ip route from 192.168.1.0/24 to 192.168.0.0/24 via 192.168.0.2 dev eth0 table network2 Which doesn't worked too. Ip considers that we are talking about the same device for the two arguments from/to and via ! This fixed correctly what I wanted : ip route from 192.168.0.0/24 to 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth0 via 192.168.1.2 dev eth1 table network1 ip route from 192.168.1.0/24 to 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth1 via 192.168.0.2 dev eth0 table network2 When repeating the name of the device, it works : this is not well documented in man pages or other text. NOTE : One can see that eth0 is the ethernet1 in network1 and eth1 is ethernet2 in network2. DISCUSSION : It's probably an evidence for you hackers that we must repeat the name for the device in order to get accross one of it to another one but it was not an evidence for me. My remark goes to be better documented of that way of thinking : what are your opinions about that ? See ya. Best regards. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
