On Tue, Nov 23, 2004 at 12:44:07PM -0700, Kevin Hilscher wrote: > I have a somewhat odd scenario that requires the same pools of 192.168 > IPs to be bound to eth1 and eth2 on the same machine. odd? no--it seems pretty much everyone has the same two problems these days: 1) multiple, overlapping network address ranges 2) an inability to search through mailing list archives > I need to NAT > another pool of 10.x.x.x IPs bound to eth0 to these two pools of 192.168 > IPs. The setup is as follows: > > eth0:10.115.0.1/16 -> eth1:192.168.0.1/24 > eth0:10.115.0.2/16 -> eth1:192.168.0.2/24 > eth0:10.115.0.3/16 -> eth1:192.168.0.3/24 > eth0:10.115.0.4/16 -> eth1:192.168.0.4/24 > eth0:10.115.0.5/16 -> eth1:192.168.0.5/24 > eth0:10.115.0.6/16 -> eth1:192.168.0.6/24 > > eth0:10.116.0.1/16 -> eth2:192.168.0.1/24 > eth0:10.116.0.2/16 -> eth2:192.168.0.2/24 > eth0:10.116.0.3/16 -> eth2:192.168.0.3/24 > eth0:10.116.0.4/16 -> eth2:192.168.0.4/24 > eth0:10.116.0.5/16 -> eth2:192.168.0.5/24 > eth0:10.116.0.6/16 -> eth2:192.168.0.6/24 > > Suse 8.1 has no problem letting me bind the same IPs to eth1 and eth2, > since eth1 and eth2 are not on the same physical network. However, I am > having problems writing my NAT rules for this scenario. > > Is this scenario doable under iptables? refer to: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=netfilter&m=110027573811157&w=2 though Carry never reported back whether it worked or not--so YMMV, but it sure saves some typing... :-D -j -- "I hope I didn't brain my damage." --The Simpsons
