* [gentoo-user] Routing problem ?
@ 2008-01-11 1:36 Holla
2008-01-11 3:14 ` kashani
2008-01-11 14:39 ` YoYo Siska
0 siblings, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Holla @ 2008-01-11 1:36 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Hi,
I think I have a routing problem with network
shown below (hope my ascii art survives)
>From PC2, I cannot ping 192.168.1.1 and no internet.
Also cannot ping ISP's DNS servers. But there is full
connectivity between PC1 and PC2.
At PC2,
# traceroute 192.168.1.1
traceroute to 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 * * *
2 * * *
I reached upto this point by following up the
gentoo howtos, but now stuck. Any pointers ?
thanks
sathish
192.168.1.1
+-+ +------------+
| |-----------| Router1 |=========ASDL conn
| | +------------+
| |
| |
| |
| | 192.168.1.23 +-------+ 192.168.2.43
| |------------------| PC1 |----))).............
+-+ +-------+ .
.
Passive Hub .
192.168.2.1 .
+------------+ .
| Router2 |--)))..
+------------+
|
|
+------+
| PC2 |
+------+
192.168.2.24
--------------------------------------------------------------
Router1 (UTSStarCom ISP supplied) :
- router IP 192.168.1.1
- wireless enabled but not used
--------------------------------------------------------------
PC1: (gentoo)
- eth0 (192.168.1.23) and wireless (192.168.2.43)
- no iptables configuration
- routing table entries
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 ra0
192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
loopback * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
default 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
# echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
# Kernel Networking options
#
CONFIG_UNIX=y
CONFIG_XFRM=y
CONFIG_INET=y
CONFIG_IP_ADVANCED_ROUTER=y
CONFIG_ASK_IP_FIB_HASH=y
CONFIG_IP_FIB_HASH=y
CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_VERBOSE=y
CONFIG_INET_XFRM_MODE_TRANSPORT=y
CONFIG_INET_XFRM_MODE_TUNNEL=y
CONFIG_INET_XFRM_MODE_TRANSPORT=y
CONFIG_INET_XFRM_MODE_TUNNEL=y
CONFIG_TCP_CONG_BIC=y
--------------------------------------------------------------
Router2 (WRT54GL)
- router IP 192.168.2.1
- wireless enabled and used
--------------------------------------------------------------
PC2 (gentoo)
- static IP address 192.168.2.24
- routing table entries
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
192.168.2.43 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0
192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
192.168.1.0 192.168.2.43 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
loopback * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
default 192.168.2.43 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Routing problem ?
2008-01-11 1:36 [gentoo-user] Routing problem ? Holla
@ 2008-01-11 3:14 ` kashani
2008-01-11 4:52 ` Mike Mazur
2008-01-11 15:15 ` Holla
2008-01-11 14:39 ` YoYo Siska
1 sibling, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: kashani @ 2008-01-11 3:14 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Holla wrote:
> 192.168.1.1
> +-+ +------------+
> | |-----------| Router1 |=========ASDL conn
> | | +------------+
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | | 192.168.1.23 +-------+ 192.168.2.43
> | |------------------| PC1 |----))).............
> +-+ +-------+ .
> .
> Passive Hub .
> 192.168.2.1 .
> +------------+ .
> | Router2 |--)))..
> +------------+
> |
> |
> +------+
> | PC2 |
> +------+
> 192.168.2.24
Yep it's a routing problem.
Router1 needs a route to point back to PC2 so when traffic bound for it
comes it, it'll know what to do with it.
route add -net 192.168.2.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.1.23
kashani
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Routing problem ?
2008-01-11 3:14 ` kashani
@ 2008-01-11 4:52 ` Mike Mazur
2008-01-11 15:18 ` Holla
2008-01-11 20:09 ` kashani
2008-01-11 15:15 ` Holla
1 sibling, 2 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Mike Mazur @ 2008-01-11 4:52 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Hi,
On Jan 11, 2008 12:14 PM, kashani <kashani-list@badapple.net> wrote:
> Holla wrote:
> > 192.168.1.1
> > +-+ +------------+
> > | |-----------| Router1 |=========ASDL conn
> > | | +------------+
> > | |
> > | |
> > | |
> > | | 192.168.1.23 +-------+ 192.168.2.43
> > | |------------------| PC1 |----))).............
> > +-+ +-------+ .
> > .
> > Passive Hub .
> > 192.168.2.1 .
> > +------------+ .
> > | Router2 |--)))..
> > +------------+
> > |
> > |
> > +------+
> > | PC2 |
> > +------+
> > 192.168.2.24
>
> Yep it's a routing problem.
>
> Router1 needs a route to point back to PC2 so when traffic bound for it
> comes it, it'll know what to do with it.
> route add -net 192.168.2.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.1.23
Also if you want PC2 to access the net, you would need PC1 to be smart
enough to route/NAT packets from PC2 to Router 1.
Mike
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Routing problem ?
2008-01-11 1:36 [gentoo-user] Routing problem ? Holla
2008-01-11 3:14 ` kashani
@ 2008-01-11 14:39 ` YoYo Siska
2008-01-11 16:20 ` Holla
1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: YoYo Siska @ 2008-01-11 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Holla wrote:
> Hi,
> I think I have a routing problem with network
> shown below (hope my ascii art survives)
>
> From PC2, I cannot ping 192.168.1.1 and no internet.
> Also cannot ping ISP's DNS servers. But there is full
> connectivity between PC1 and PC2.
>
> At PC2,
> # traceroute 192.168.1.1
> traceroute to 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
> 1 * * *
> 2 * * *
>
> I reached upto this point by following up the
> gentoo howtos, but now stuck. Any pointers ?
as someone other said, you should setup NAT, there should be enough
information on the wiki, but basically
iptabales -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o eth0 -s 192.168.2.0/24 -j MASQUERADE
on PC1 should do it, but there might be better ways ;)
(note that you need some iptables stuff in the kernel)
one other thing, if nat doesn't work, some wireless aps (i'm thinking
about the 192.168.2.1) need to have correctly set up default gateway
etc... they sometimes try to be to smart and I had sometimes problems
when the router was connected as a wireless client to them...
btw, why don't you use the wireless on the ROUTER1 (doesn't seem you
want to do any firewalling on the PC1)? It might make things much
simpler... you could setup the other ap to connect to it in client mode
and all your network could then be on the 192.168.1.0/24 and I would
gues that your provider NATs the whole subnet...
yoyo
>
>
> 192.168.1.1
> +-+ +------------+
> | |-----------| Router1 |=========ASDL conn
> | | +------------+
> | |
> | |
> | |
> | | 192.168.1.23 +-------+ 192.168.2.43
> | |------------------| PC1 |----))).............
> +-+ +-------+ .
> .
> Passive Hub .
> 192.168.2.1 .
> +------------+ .
> | Router2 |--)))..
> +------------+
> |
> |
> +------+
> | PC2 |
> +------+
> 192.168.2.24
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Router1 (UTSStarCom ISP supplied) :
> - router IP 192.168.1.1
> - wireless enabled but not used
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> PC1: (gentoo)
>
> - eth0 (192.168.1.23) and wireless (192.168.2.43)
> - no iptables configuration
> - routing table entries
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
> 192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 ra0
> 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
> loopback * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
> default 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
>
>
> # echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
>
>
> # Kernel Networking options
> #
> CONFIG_UNIX=y
> CONFIG_XFRM=y
> CONFIG_INET=y
> CONFIG_IP_ADVANCED_ROUTER=y
> CONFIG_ASK_IP_FIB_HASH=y
> CONFIG_IP_FIB_HASH=y
> CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_VERBOSE=y
> CONFIG_INET_XFRM_MODE_TRANSPORT=y
> CONFIG_INET_XFRM_MODE_TUNNEL=y
> CONFIG_INET_XFRM_MODE_TRANSPORT=y
> CONFIG_INET_XFRM_MODE_TUNNEL=y
> CONFIG_TCP_CONG_BIC=y
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Router2 (WRT54GL)
> - router IP 192.168.2.1
> - wireless enabled and used
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> PC2 (gentoo)
> - static IP address 192.168.2.24
> - routing table entries
>
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
> 192.168.2.43 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0
> 192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
> 192.168.1.0 192.168.2.43 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
> loopback * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
> default 192.168.2.43 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Routing problem ?
2008-01-11 3:14 ` kashani
2008-01-11 4:52 ` Mike Mazur
@ 2008-01-11 15:15 ` Holla
1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Holla @ 2008-01-11 15:15 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Jan 11, 2008 8:44 AM, kashani <kashani-list@badapple.net> wrote:
> Holla wrote:
> > 192.168.1.1
> > +-+ +------------+
> > | |-----------| Router1 |=========ASDL conn
> > | | +------------+
> > | |
> > | |
> > | |
> > | | 192.168.1.23 +-------+ 192.168.2.43
> > | |------------------| PC1 |----))).............
> > +-+ +-------+ .
> > .
> > Passive Hub .
> > 192.168.2.1 .
> > +------------+ .
> > | Router2 |--)))..
> > +------------+
> > |
> > |
> > +------+
> > | PC2 |
> > +------+
> > 192.168.2.24
>
> Yep it's a routing problem.
>
> Router1 needs a route to point back to PC2 so when traffic bound for it
> comes it, it'll know what to do with it.
> route add -net 192.168.2.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.1.23
>
Thanks, I added this route at the Router1 and now can ping 192.168.1.1
at PC2. But still can't ping DNS server from PC2.
At PC2
# traceroute 218.248.240.46 (ISP's DNS server)
traceroute to 218.248.240.46 (218.248.240.46), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.2.43 (192.168.2.43) 1.730 ms 0.840 ms 0.920 ms
2 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 1.440 ms 1.469 ms 1.287 ms
3 * * *
4 * * *
At PC1
# traceroute 218.248.240.46
traceroute to 218.248.240.46 (218.248.240.46), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 0.848 ms 0.706 ms 0.681 ms
2 117.192.128.1 (117.192.128.1) 19.712 ms 18.878 ms 19.920 ms
3 218.248.160.134 (218.248.160.134) 19.292 ms 19.796 ms 19.190 ms
Any idea why this is so ?
sathish
> kashani
>
> --
> gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Routing problem ?
2008-01-11 4:52 ` Mike Mazur
@ 2008-01-11 15:18 ` Holla
2008-01-11 20:09 ` kashani
1 sibling, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Holla @ 2008-01-11 15:18 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Jan 11, 2008 10:22 AM, Mike Mazur <mmazur@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2008 12:14 PM, kashani <kashani-list@badapple.net> wrote:
> > Holla wrote:
> > > 192.168.1.1
> > > +-+ +------------+
> > > | |-----------| Router1 |=========ASDL conn
> > > | | +------------+
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | | 192.168.1.23 +-------+ 192.168.2.43
> > > | |------------------| PC1 |----))).............
> > > +-+ +-------+ .
> > > .
> > > Passive Hub .
> > > 192.168.2.1 .
> > > +------------+ .
> > > | Router2 |--)))..
> > > +------------+
> > > |
> > > |
> > > +------+
> > > | PC2 |
> > > +------+
> > > 192.168.2.24
> >
> > Yep it's a routing problem.
> >
> > Router1 needs a route to point back to PC2 so when traffic bound for it
> > comes it, it'll know what to do with it.
> > route add -net 192.168.2.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.1.23
>
> Also if you want PC2 to access the net, you would need PC1 to be smart
> enough to route/NAT packets from PC2 to Router 1.
Thanks, but I only have a very limited understanding of this matter.
Does this mean I had to add netfilter to the kernel and configure
iptables ?
sathish
> Mike
>
> --
> gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Routing problem ?
2008-01-11 14:39 ` YoYo Siska
@ 2008-01-11 16:20 ` Holla
2008-01-11 17:50 ` [gentoo-user] " reader
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Holla @ 2008-01-11 16:20 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Jan 11, 2008 8:09 PM, YoYo Siska <yoyo@gl.ksp.sk> wrote:
> one other thing, if nat doesn't work, some wireless aps (i'm thinking
> about the 192.168.2.1) need to have correctly set up default gateway
> etc... they sometimes try to be to smart and I had sometimes problems
> when the router was connected as a wireless client to them...
Can you give some clues about what you mean by correctly setup gw ?
>
> btw, why don't you use the wireless on the ROUTER1 (doesn't seem you
> want to do any firewalling on the PC1)? It might make things much
> simpler... you could setup the other ap to connect to it in client mode
> and all your network could then be on the 192.168.1.0/24 and I would
> gues that your provider NATs the whole subnet...
Router1 is temporary. My ISP will shortly replace it with
a non-wireless version. So I want configure this way.
sathish
>
>
> yoyo
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > 192.168.1.1
> > +-+ +------------+
> > | |-----------| Router1 |=========ASDL conn
> > | | +------------+
> > | |
> > | |
> > | |
> > | | 192.168.1.23 +-------+ 192.168.2.43
> > | |------------------| PC1 |----))).............
> > +-+ +-------+ .
> > .
> > Passive Hub .
> > 192.168.2.1 .
> > +------------+ .
> > | Router2 |--)))..
> > +------------+
> > |
> > |
> > +------+
> > | PC2 |
> > +------+
> > 192.168.2.24
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > Router1 (UTSStarCom ISP supplied) :
> > - router IP 192.168.1.1
> > - wireless enabled but not used
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > PC1: (gentoo)
> >
> > - eth0 (192.168.1.23) and wireless (192.168.2.43)
> > - no iptables configuration
> > - routing table entries
> > Kernel IP routing table
> > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
> > 192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 ra0
> > 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
> > loopback * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
> > default 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
> >
> >
> > # echo "1" > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
> >
> >
> > # Kernel Networking options
> > #
> > CONFIG_UNIX=y
> > CONFIG_XFRM=y
> > CONFIG_INET=y
> > CONFIG_IP_ADVANCED_ROUTER=y
> > CONFIG_ASK_IP_FIB_HASH=y
> > CONFIG_IP_FIB_HASH=y
> > CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_VERBOSE=y
> > CONFIG_INET_XFRM_MODE_TRANSPORT=y
> > CONFIG_INET_XFRM_MODE_TUNNEL=y
> > CONFIG_INET_XFRM_MODE_TRANSPORT=y
> > CONFIG_INET_XFRM_MODE_TUNNEL=y
> > CONFIG_TCP_CONG_BIC=y
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Router2 (WRT54GL)
> > - router IP 192.168.2.1
> > - wireless enabled and used
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > PC2 (gentoo)
> > - static IP address 192.168.2.24
> > - routing table entries
> >
> > Kernel IP routing table
> > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
> > 192.168.2.43 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0
> > 192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
> > 192.168.1.0 192.168.2.43 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
> > loopback * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
> > default 192.168.2.43 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
>
>
>
> --
> gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Routing problem ?
@ 2008-01-11 17:14 Richard Torres
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Richard Torres @ 2008-01-11 17:14 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2419 bytes --]
I don't understand why 2 routers. Maybe I'm missing something. Unless you have 2 networks that need to be separate only one is needed. If you have a wireless router, use it as a wireless access point and not a router. Which means turn off DHCP on the wireless router and don't configure or use the WAN connection.
Depending on the capabilities of the router you can connect a LAN port on Router2 to your ADSL (Router1) router and assign an IP address that's in the same network as Router1.
----- Original Message ----
From: Holla <holla.net@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 8:18:37 AM
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Routing problem ?
On Jan 11, 2008 10:22 AM, Mike Mazur <mmazur@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Jan 11, 2008 12:14 PM, kashani <kashani-list@badapple.net> wrote:
> > Holla wrote:
> > > 192.168.1.1
> > > +-+ +------------+
> > > | |-----------| Router1 |=========ASDL conn
> > > | | +------------+
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | |
> > > | | 192.168.1.23 +-------+ 192.168.2.43
> > > | |------------------| PC1 |----))).............
> > > +-+ +-------+ .
> > > .
> > > Passive Hub .
> > > 192.168.2.1 .
> > > +------------+ .
> > > | Router2 |--)))..
> > > +------------+
> > > |
> > > |
> > > +------+
> > > | PC2 |
> > > +------+
> > > 192.168.2.24
> >
> > Yep it's a routing problem.
> >
> > Router1 needs a route to point back to PC2 so when traffic bound
for it
> > comes it, it'll know what to do with it.
> > route add -net 192.168.2.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.1.23
>
> Also if you want PC2 to access the net, you would need PC1 to be
smart
> enough to route/NAT packets from PC2 to Router 1.
Thanks, but I only have a very limited understanding of this matter.
Does this mean I had to add netfilter to the kernel and configure
iptables ?
sathish
> Mike
>
> --
> gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4864 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* [gentoo-user] Re: Routing problem ?
2008-01-11 16:20 ` Holla
@ 2008-01-11 17:50 ` reader
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: reader @ 2008-01-11 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Holla <holla.net@gmail.com> writes:
> On Jan 11, 2008 8:09 PM, YoYo Siska <yoyo@gl.ksp.sk> wrote:
>
>> one other thing, if nat doesn't work, some wireless aps (i'm thinking
>> about the 192.168.2.1) need to have correctly set up default gateway
>> etc... they sometimes try to be to smart and I had sometimes problems
>> when the router was connected as a wireless client to them...
>
> Can you give some clues about what you mean by correctly setup gw ?
Hey guys... it would help if you trim your posts so there isn't so
much in each message.
By correct gateway I think in this case it would be the inward facing
address of pc1 (192.168.2.43) so on router2 you would set the gw to
that address.
And on pc2 the gw would be 192.168.2.1. That is unless router2 is
just a WAP (wireless access point).
But I'm not sure I understand all of this. It might be good to
include the make of the routers (even model number might matter).
Excuse me if this info is already in these monster size messages
somewhere but:
If you redo the diagram please include this information:
make and model of router2
What OS is running on pc1 and pc2
Annotate in one line what gateways are set at the various points.
The adsl router make and model may not matter too much.
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Routing problem ?
2008-01-11 4:52 ` Mike Mazur
2008-01-11 15:18 ` Holla
@ 2008-01-11 20:09 ` kashani
2008-01-13 11:12 ` Holla
1 sibling, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: kashani @ 2008-01-11 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Mike Mazur wrote:
>> Router1 needs a route to point back to PC2 so when traffic bound for it
>> comes it, it'll know what to do with it.
>> route add -net 192.168.2.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.1.23
>
> Also if you want PC2 to access the net, you would need PC1 to be smart
> enough to route/NAT packets from PC2 to Router 1.
Not true in this case.
Router1 is the NAT device and everything else is internal or so I
assumed. You don't want NAT behind NAT on your network if you can help
it. It tends to break things and is hard to troubleshoot.
PC1 does need to have IP forwarding turned on which the original poster
mentioned he configured.
The tests I would run are:
ping 192.168.2.43 from router1. That'll test that router1 knows how to
get to 192.168.2.0. I don't think packet forwarding has to be working
for this to return since the interfaces are all local on PC1.
ping router 1 from PC2 and vice versa. That'll make sure that PC1 is
forwarding packets correctly.
If both of these are fine, it's possible the router1 is not NATing
192.168.2.0/24 addresses.
kashani
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Routing problem ?
2008-01-11 20:09 ` kashani
@ 2008-01-13 11:12 ` Holla
2008-01-13 13:06 ` Hans-Werner Hilse
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Holla @ 2008-01-13 11:12 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
I redo the diagram to show the gw info.
Router1: UTSStarCom WA3002G4
Wireless Router with 4 ethernet ports
NAT is enabled (Just a tickbox)
PC1, PC2 : gentoo, 2.6.18.3 kernel
Router2: LinkSys WRT54GL (default firmware)
used as access point
--------------------------------------------------
192.168.1.1
default gw: ISP net
192.168.2.0 gw: 192.168.1.23
+-+ +------------+
| |-----------| Router1 |=========ASDL conn
| | +------------+
| |
| |
| | 192.168.1.23 +-------+ 192.168.2.43
| |------------------| PC1 |----))).............
+-+ +-------+ .
Passive Hub gw: 192.168.1.1 .
.
192.168.2.1 .
+------------+ .
| W.AccessPt |--)))...
| (Router2) |
+------------+
|
+------+
| PC2 |
+------+
192.168.2.24
gw: 192.168.2.43
Yo Yo wrote:
> btw, why don't you use the wireless on the ROUTER1 (doesn't seem you
> want to do any firewalling on the PC1)?
Because this box is temporary, it will be replaced with a non-wireless
one by the ISP.
Richard Torres wrote:
> <snip> .. Unless you have 2 networks that need to be separate only one is needed. If you have a wireless router, use it as a wireless access point and not a router. Which means turn off DHCP on the wireless router and don't configure or use the WAN connection.
This router is LinkSys WRT54GL with default firmware and I am using
it really as an access point. There is no option to disable the WAN
connection, so I left it as 'DHCP'.
> Depending on the capabilities of the router you can connect a LAN port on Router2 to your ADSL (Router1) router and assign an IP address that's in the same network as Router1.
I agree this would have simplified the network, but the problem is, I cannot
run a cable due to walls in between. The default firmware on LinkSys does
not provide a client option. (Yes, I am aware of OpenWrt/DD-WRT etc )
I hope using the client option does not prevent the access point function.
reader wrote:
> By correct gateway I think in this case it would be the inward facing
> address of pc1 (192.168.2.43) so on router2 you would set the gw to
> that address.
Already done.
> And on pc2 the gw would be 192.168.2.1. That is unless router2 is
> just a WAP (wireless access point).
As router is just a WAP, the gw is set to 192.168.2.43.
kashani wrote:
> Router1 is the NAT device and everything else is internal or so I
> assumed. You don't want NAT behind NAT on your network if you can help
> it. It tends to break things and is hard to troubleshoot.
I just ticked the 'Enable NAT' tickbox in the router configuration.
> PC1 does need to have IP forwarding turned on which the original poster
> mentioned he configured.
Yes, this is done.
>The tests I would run are:
>
> ping 192.168.2.43 from router1. That'll test that router1 knows how to
> get to 192.168.2.0. I don't think packet forwarding has to be working
> for this to return since the interfaces are all local on PC1.
Ping is ok.
> ping router 1 from PC2 and vice versa. That'll make sure that PC1 is
> forwarding packets correctly.
Ping is ok.
> If both of these are fine, it's possible the router1 is not NATing
> 192.168.2.0/24 addresses.
Do you think an ISP would allow only one LAN segment (like 192.168.1.x)
and not allow 192.168.2.x at the same time ? Is there any incentive
for them ?
One thing, I cannot understand is the difference in traceroute
results. What does this say in plain english ? :-)
At PC2
# traceroute 218.248.240.46 (ISP's DNS server)
traceroute to 218.248.240.46 (218.248.240.46), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.2.43 (192.168.2.43) 1.730 ms 0.840 ms 0.920 ms
2 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 1.440 ms 1.469 ms 1.287 ms
3 * * *
4 * * *
At PC1
# traceroute 218.248.240.46
traceroute to 218.248.240.46 (218.248.240.46), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 0.848 ms 0.706 ms 0.681 ms
2 117.192.128.1 (117.192.128.1) 19.712 ms 18.878 ms 19.920 ms
3 218.248.160.134 (218.248.160.134) 19.292 ms 19.796 ms 19.190 ms
--
sathish
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Routing problem ?
2008-01-13 11:12 ` Holla
@ 2008-01-13 13:06 ` Hans-Werner Hilse
2008-01-16 12:22 ` Mick
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Hans-Werner Hilse @ 2008-01-13 13:06 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Hi,
On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:42:56 +0530
Holla <holla.net@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing, I cannot understand is the difference in traceroute
> results. What does this say in plain english ? :-)
>
> At PC2
> # traceroute 218.248.240.46 (ISP's DNS server)
> traceroute to 218.248.240.46 (218.248.240.46), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
> 1 192.168.2.43 (192.168.2.43) 1.730 ms 0.840 ms 0.920 ms
> 2 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 1.440 ms 1.469 ms 1.287 ms
> 3 * * *
> 4 * * *
>
> At PC1
>
> # traceroute 218.248.240.46
> traceroute to 218.248.240.46 (218.248.240.46), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
> 1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 0.848 ms 0.706 ms 0.681 ms
> 2 117.192.128.1 (117.192.128.1) 19.712 ms 18.878 ms 19.920 ms
> 3 218.248.160.134 (218.248.160.134) 19.292 ms 19.796 ms 19.190 ms
I'd say your router (Router1) isn't doing NAT for packets from other
subnets than it's LAN interface is configured for -- regardless of the
(correctly) configured internal additional route.
So your option would be to set up PC1 for doing NAT, not necessarily
for packets 192.168.2/24<->192.168.1/24, but for all packets from
192.168.2/24 going to the internet.
Your provider most likely does not have anything to do with all this.
-hwh
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Routing problem ?
2008-01-13 13:06 ` Hans-Werner Hilse
@ 2008-01-16 12:22 ` Mick
2008-01-16 21:10 ` kashani
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: Mick @ 2008-01-16 12:22 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1704 bytes --]
On Sunday 13 January 2008, Hans-Werner Hilse wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 16:42:56 +0530
>
> Holla <holla.net@gmail.com> wrote:
> > One thing, I cannot understand is the difference in traceroute
> > results. What does this say in plain english ? :-)
> >
> > At PC2
> > # traceroute 218.248.240.46 (ISP's DNS server)
> > traceroute to 218.248.240.46 (218.248.240.46), 30 hops max, 40 byte
> > packets 1 192.168.2.43 (192.168.2.43) 1.730 ms 0.840 ms 0.920 ms
> > 2 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 1.440 ms 1.469 ms 1.287 ms
> > 3 * * *
> > 4 * * *
> >
> > At PC1
> >
> > # traceroute 218.248.240.46
> > traceroute to 218.248.240.46 (218.248.240.46), 30 hops max, 40 byte
> > packets 1 192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1) 0.848 ms 0.706 ms 0.681 ms
> > 2 117.192.128.1 (117.192.128.1) 19.712 ms 18.878 ms 19.920 ms
> > 3 218.248.160.134 (218.248.160.134) 19.292 ms 19.796 ms 19.190 ms
>
> I'd say your router (Router1) isn't doing NAT for packets from other
> subnets than it's LAN interface is configured for -- regardless of the
> (correctly) configured internal additional route.
>
> So your option would be to set up PC1 for doing NAT, not necessarily
> for packets 192.168.2/24<->192.168.1/24, but for all packets from
> 192.168.2/24 going to the internet.
>
> Your provider most likely does not have anything to do with all this.
I agree that this is not related to the ISP. What you probably need to do is
set up RIP2 in your router 1, to be able to recognise other subdomains
(192.168.2.XXX). Then it'll process packets coming from that subdomain. The
router manual ought to help you out on setting this up.
--
Regards,
Mick
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Routing problem ?
2008-01-16 12:22 ` Mick
@ 2008-01-16 21:10 ` kashani
2008-01-17 1:31 ` Holla
0 siblings, 1 reply; 15+ messages in thread
From: kashani @ 2008-01-16 21:10 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
Mick wrote:
> I agree that this is not related to the ISP. What you probably need to do is
> set up RIP2 in your router 1, to be able to recognize other subdomains
> (192.168.2.XXX). Then it'll process packets coming from that subdomain. The
> router manual ought to help you out on setting this up.
<grumpy network engineer>
Sure let's make something simple really complicated. And sucky.
</>
Is there some sort of dynamic routing happening on this network?
Different possible paths to get to machines? Links we might want to
balance traffic over? Other routers sending route updates? If not, then
why would we want the added complexity of a routing protocol? There are
all of two routes on this network and they never change. Static routing
is the right choice and functionally no different than if the route had
been inserted via a routing protocol.
No routing protocol will make router1 NAT addresses it doesn't want to.
Adding that subnet to the NAT list will, but that is outside the routing
table or it would have already worked.
kashani
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
* Re: [gentoo-user] Routing problem ?
2008-01-16 21:10 ` kashani
@ 2008-01-17 1:31 ` Holla
0 siblings, 0 replies; 15+ messages in thread
From: Holla @ 2008-01-17 1:31 UTC (permalink / raw
To: gentoo-user
On Jan 17, 2008 2:40 AM, kashani <kashani-list@badapple.net> wrote:
> Mick wrote:
>
> > I agree that this is not related to the ISP. What you probably need to do is
> > set up RIP2 in your router 1, to be able to recognize other subdomains
> > (192.168.2.XXX). Then it'll process packets coming from that subdomain. The
> > router manual ought to help you out on setting this up.
>
> <grumpy network engineer>
> Sure let's make something simple really complicated. And sucky.
> </>
>
> Is there some sort of dynamic routing happening on this network?
> Different possible paths to get to machines? Links we might want to
> balance traffic over? Other routers sending route updates? If not, then
> why would we want the added complexity of a routing protocol? There are
> all of two routes on this network and they never change. Static routing
> is the right choice and functionally no different than if the route had
> been inserted via a routing protocol.
>
> No routing protocol will make router1 NAT addresses it doesn't want to.
> Adding that subnet to the NAT list will, but that is outside the routing
> table or it would have already worked.
Well, I had earlier tried enabling the RIP2 option in Router1 but no change
in results.
For the moment I have given up on this configuration. I am now trying
to setup up the network as one segment only 192.168.1.x.. Using
the Router2 in client mode is one option.
Thanks for all the respones..
Sathish
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 15+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2008-01-17 1:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2008-01-11 1:36 [gentoo-user] Routing problem ? Holla
2008-01-11 3:14 ` kashani
2008-01-11 4:52 ` Mike Mazur
2008-01-11 15:18 ` Holla
2008-01-11 20:09 ` kashani
2008-01-13 11:12 ` Holla
2008-01-13 13:06 ` Hans-Werner Hilse
2008-01-16 12:22 ` Mick
2008-01-16 21:10 ` kashani
2008-01-17 1:31 ` Holla
2008-01-11 15:15 ` Holla
2008-01-11 14:39 ` YoYo Siska
2008-01-11 16:20 ` Holla
2008-01-11 17:50 ` [gentoo-user] " reader
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-01-11 17:14 [gentoo-user] " Richard Torres
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox