From: "Tim" <twr@bellsouth.net>
To: iptables-list <netfilter@lists.samba.org>
Subject: Re: forwarding (continued)
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 23:40:37 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <001201c2264a$ce154110$2002d6d1@nebuchadnezza> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 20020708020553.MITF4119.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@there
I'm pinging from INTERNAL = 192.168.1.4 and DMZ = 172.16.1.3 each one of
these machines has their own respective default gateway which are INTERNAL =
192.168.1.11 and DMZ = 172.16.1.1
----- Original Message -----
From: "Antony Stone" <Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk>
To: "iptables-list" <netfilter@lists.samba.org>
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: forwarding (continued)
> On Monday 08 July 2002 5:54 am, Tim wrote:
>
> > Antony,
> >
> > INTERNAL IP = 192.168.1.0/24 -- range 1 thru 11
> > DMZ IP = 172.16.1.0/24 -- range 1 thru 5
> >
> > The reason I believe I know it is not forwarding....is that when I ping
> > from the DMZ I get a "request time out"
>
> In fact I am fairly sure this is a routing problem.
>
> The routing table on your firewall looks a little odd - what are the
actual
> IP addresses on its interfaces ?
Yes, I agree the routing table looks a little odd in the sense (from my
perspective) that there are only two interfaces that have a default gateway.
I had configured from the network configuration front-end for all to have
default gateways. The actual ipaddresses on the firewall box are .... eth0 =
192.168.2.1/eth1 = 172.16.1.1/eth2 = 192.168.1.11.
>
> Also, what are the routing tables on the machine you're pinging from, and
the
> machine you're pinging to ?
Does this mean that the default gateways (the NICs on the firewall box) are
not enough to route the packet through?
I just added a route to box 192.168.1.4 (an NT box INTERNAL) "route add -p
172.168.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.11", and a route to box 172.16.1.5
(another NT box in the DMZ) "route add -p 192.168.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0
172.16.1.1", to no avail....this can't be the answer.
> My guess at the moment is the machine being pinged doesn't have a route to
> reply by.
Each one of the machine has a default gateway (the NICs on the firewall box)
specified in the ip configuration.
I believe this to be true, but I believe the answer is in the firewall box
and the configuration of the rules.
>
>
>
> Antony.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-07-08 6:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-07-08 4:54 forwarding (continued) Tim
2002-07-08 2:05 ` Antony Stone
2002-07-08 6:40 ` Tim [this message]
2002-07-08 7:54 ` Antony Stone
2002-07-08 16:23 ` Tim
2002-07-08 15:28 ` Antony Stone
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-07-08 2:24 George Vieira
2002-07-08 2:20 George Vieira
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='001201c2264a$ce154110$2002d6d1@nebuchadnezza' \
--to=twr@bellsouth.net \
--cc=netfilter@lists.samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox