On Monday 2010-09-20 23:40, Daniel L. Miller wrote:
>
> Given the specific architecture:
> Windows Workstation 192.168.5.100, default gateway 192.168.5.1
> Linux Gateway/Router/VPN node 192.168.7.2, 192.168.5.1, 192.168.0.90, default
> gateway 192.168.7.1
> DSL Modem 192.168.7.1
>
> Linux Server/Router/VPN server/Virtual Server 192.168.0.71, 192.168.56.1,
> default gateway 192.168.0.1
> Virtual Machine 192.168.56.20, default gateway 192.168.56.1
graph {
windows -- lxgateway;
lxgateway -- dsl;
lxgateway -- vserver;
vserser -- vm;
};
>
> What is the "easiest" way of "achieving routing" between the Windows
> Workstation and the Virtual Machine? Is this an instance where NAT would make
> administration simpler instead of "pure" routing? The cumbersome-but-working
> method I have employed at the moment includes;
NAT wouldn't fix anything.
> add 192.168.56.0/24 via 192.168.0.71 route to Workstation
> add 192.168.56.0/24 via 192.168.0.71 route to Linux Gateway
> add 192.168.5.0/24 via 192.168.0.90 route to Linux Server
That won't work because
- 192.168.0.71/32 is a nonexisting route on Workstation (at least I
suppose that this is the case currently)
- 56.0/24 via 0.71 is redundant because you've got a default route
through lxgateway anyway
- You don't really need the .0.0/24.
Do:
lxgateway:
- addr: 192.168.5.1/24 dev ethwork
- addr: 192.168.5.1/32 dev ethvserver
- route: 192.168.5.0/24 dev ethwork (automatic)
- route: 192.168.56.1/32 dev ethvserver
- route: 192.168.56.0/24 via 192.168.56.1
Workstation:
- addr: 192.168.5.X/24 dev eth0
- route: default via 192.168.5.1
vserver:
- addr: 192.168.56.1/24 dev ethvms
- addr: 192.168.56.1/32 dev ethmain
- route: 192.168.56.0/24 dev ethvms (automatic)
- route: 192.168.5.1/32 dev ethmain
- route: default via 192.168.5.1
vms:
- addr: 192.168.56.X/24 dev eth0
- route: default via 192.168.56.1
> I almost understand the need for the 192.168.5.0/24 entry on the
> Linux Server side - because otherwise the router doesn't know how
> to reply, and the same goes for the 192.168.56.0/24 entry on the
> Gateway side - otherwise the Gateway doesn't know how to reach that
> subnet in the first place. But, if the Gateway is defined as the
> default for the Workstation, why is a routing entry required for
> the Workstation?
It is in fact not required.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
