It just come up a simple idea. If the bridge ip is 120.40.60.194<http://120.40.60.194>, why don;t you use it as a gateway for people behind it? On 10/22/05, Tom Gaudasinski <cetus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Greetings, > I have a problem in regards to the routing i've set up. I have a > public subnet bridged from my ISP(DSL), it's a full bridge. So in order > to use this subnet i have created a bridge out of two eth interfaces so > that i may also firewall what will be behind the router. In addition to > this I have a private subnet (192.168.1.x) that I NAT to the public IP > of the router. My setup looks like this: > > DSL Modem (in bridge mode) > | > / eth0 \ > <br0> 120.40.60.194/29 <http://120.40.60.194/29> > \ eth1 / > / \__ Publically addresses machines > eth2 > 192.168.1.1___Privately NATted machines > > So eth0 and eth1 are part of the bridge (which has 1 ip address), and > eth2 has a private address. eth0 plugs directly into the dsl modem, eth1 > into a switch that contains publically addressed computers and eth2 > logically so as well. I've set the rules up so that the users behind > eth2 get natted and the public users also get internet. This works, what > doesn't work however is that the 192.168.1.x users cannot communicate > with the publically addressed users through the router. Even when the > firewall has been cleared out (of natting rules) they still cannot ping > or communicate. It seems there's a different procedure for routing to a > bridge. my route -n output is: > > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use > Iface > 120.40.60.192 <http://120.40.60.192> 0.0.0.0 <http://0.0.0.0> > 255.255.255.248 <http://255.255.255.248> U 0 0 0 br0 > 192.168.1.0 <http://192.168.1.0> 0.0.0.0 <http://0.0.0.0> 255.255.255.0<http://255.255.255.0>U 0 0 0 eth2 > 0.0.0.0 <http://0.0.0.0> 120.40.60.193 <http://120.40.60.193> 0.0.0.0<http://0.0.0.0>UG 0 0 0 br0 > > How can i get the private LAN users to route to the publically bridged > subnet? > > Thankyou. > > > > -- Bla bla
