From: "Carlos Fernandez Sanz" <cfs-netfilter@nisupu.com>
To: Antony Stone <Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk>,
netfilter <netfilter@lists.netfilter.org>
Subject: Re: Routing problem
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2004 16:15:39 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <003101c3f30d$67d8ed20$1530a8c0@HUSH> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 200402140909.20468.Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk
> > The link between the carrier and the linux box happens using WAN
addresses,
> > ie. 172.x.y.1 (them) <--> 172.x.y.99 (us). All traffic is exchanged
using
> > those two addresses - they just won't route traffic not being routed
from
> > 172.x.y.99.
>
> Oh, so when you say "WAN address", you actually mean another private
address
> (172.x.x.1), not the public address you've been assigned as part of your
> pool?
Exactly. WAN is the term the carrier uses for this.
>
> I think I understand now - you're talking about the router addresses which
can
> talk to each other, not the source addresses of the packets being
routed...
Exactly. Those are always public IP addresses.
> > The route also has 192.168.21.1 on another NIC, which is connected to
our
> > own LAN. It also has our first public address - so traffic we generate
to
> > internet uses this public address, and traffic coming from internet goes
to
> > this public address. (being routed through the 172.x.y.z) addresses.
>
> What (exactly) do you mean by "It also has our first public address"? Is
> that public IP assigned to one of your router's interfaces? If it is,
then
> simply connect the machine needing the second public IP address on it to
that
> interface, pointing to the first public IP as the default route.
Provided
> your NAT rules are only applied to what was originally 192.168.21.x
traffic,
> then those packets with (source address = second public IP) will simply go
> through the router and work without NAT.
>
> If, on the other hand, you don't mean that the first public IP has been
> assigned to one of the interfaces on your router, then I see you have
three
> choices (no doubt there are others, maybe some will be suggested by
people):
>
> 1. Add another interface to the router, assign it your first public IP,
and
> proceed as described in the paragraph above.
>
> 2. Add another interface to the machine requiring the public IP, make sure
the
> software running on it binds to the public IP and not the private one, and
> set up a route on your router telling it "public IP number 2 can be found
via
> this gateway", giving it the private address of the special machine as the
> gateway address.
>
> 3. Add an interface to the router and assign it some completely new IP
> address, outside any of the network ranges you are currently using (eg
> 192.168.250.1), and create a point-to-point link to the machine requiring
the
> public IP (which now needs only one interface, and is assigned that public
> IP, but again using a point-to-point route).
>
> You might be able to achieve any of the above using a virtual interface
> instead of a physical one, but that would be harder to debug in the event
of
> problems.
>
> I hope we're getting somewhere now :)
>
> > Just for the record, our user is a SAP employee who needs to access the
SAP
> > internal network from our office. They have a setup to allow workers to
> > connect from home, etc, but obviously they didn't thought they could
connect
> > from another LAN...
>
> Why don't they just use a VPN?
>
> Antony.
>
> --
> In science, one tries to tell people
> in such a way as to be understood by everyone
> something that no-one ever knew before.
>
> In poetry, it is the exact opposite.
>
> - Paul Dirac
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-02-14 15:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-02-13 15:39 Routing problem Carlos Fernandez Sanz
2004-02-13 15:50 ` Antony Stone
2004-02-13 16:30 ` Carlos Fernandez Sanz
2004-02-13 17:12 ` Antony Stone
2004-02-14 8:41 ` Carlos Fernandez Sanz
2004-02-14 9:09 ` Antony Stone
2004-02-14 15:15 ` Carlos Fernandez Sanz [this message]
2004-02-14 15:19 ` Carlos Fernandez Sanz
2004-02-14 15:38 ` Antony Stone
2004-02-16 10:13 ` Problems with kernel 2.6.1 and iptables Jan Kaastrup
2004-02-16 10:26 ` Ray Leach
2004-02-16 10:47 ` Antony Stone
2004-02-16 11:19 ` Ray Leach
2004-02-16 13:18 ` Alexis
2004-02-16 14:05 ` Jan Kaastrup
2004-02-13 17:16 ` Routing problem Scott MacKay
2004-02-14 8:47 ` Carlos Fernandez Sanz
2004-02-13 16:53 ` John A. Sullivan III
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2004-07-27 7:23 Michelle Konzack
2004-07-27 7:42 ` Sven Schuster
2004-07-27 8:06 ` Michelle Konzack
2004-07-27 14:21 ` Sven Schuster
2004-07-28 8:32 ` Michelle Konzack
2003-08-13 18:26 GG Noris
2002-09-20 14:29 Routing Problem Tom Fischer
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='003101c3f30d$67d8ed20$1530a8c0@HUSH' \
--to=cfs-netfilter@nisupu.com \
--cc=Antony@Soft-Solutions.co.uk \
--cc=netfilter@lists.netfilter.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