Re: Fwd: Route packets from an interface to another

[Edmundo Carmona <eantoranz@gmail.com>]

and then again I forgot to send the mail to the netfilter list. I'll
have to find a way to solve this problem.

On 9/11/05, Edmundo Carmona <eantoranz@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well.. just as I said.. if the boxes in the eth0 lan know how to reach
> the boxes, then you have to do nothing else (translation: if the boxes
> in the 192.168.2/24 network know that the router to reach the
> 192.168.3/24 network is te box we're talking about [it's eth0 IP, of
> course).... or it's default gateway knows... for that matter), then
> you are done.
> 
> And when you configure an interface's IP (and netmask if needed), no
> default GW is set. Only the broadcast address... right?
> 
> 
> 
> On 9/12/05, Rudi Starcevic <tech@wildcash.com> wrote:
> > Edmundo,
> >
> >
> > > Is that of any help?
> > Indeed yes ... many thanks.
> >
> > > I will assume you want to be able to have traffic between your two lans, right?
> > Yes. Once that is in place I'm interested in restricting the IPs who
> > travers the two networks.
> >
> > >
> > > I will delete your routing tables.
> > >
> > > I will flush all routing from the default table.
> > >
> > > Set eth0 and eth1:
> > > ifconfig eth0 blah blah
> > > ifconfig eth1 blah blah
> > >
> > > set the default gw
> > > ip route add default via gwIP
> > >
> > > let's enable forward between both interfaces:
> > > echo "1" > /proc/blah/blah/ip_forward
> > >
> > > I don't remember if eth0 is the lan with the internet router... or eth1
> >
> > It's eth0.
> >
> > >
> > > I will assume it's eth1 for this next paragraph.
> > >
> > > here's a thing you have to consider. If the boxes in the eth1 lan know
> > > how to reach the boxes in eth0 lan (that means, they know they have to
> > > use you as the router for that network), then you have to do nothing
> > > else. You will have traffic traversing between both networks. If they
> > > don't, then masquerade traffic going out eth1.
> > >
> > > There are a couple of aditional details.... but I guess that's the
> > > "core" of the problem.
> >
> > Awesome .. thanks again .. just the advice I was hoping to gain.
> >
> > I hope to build a ruleset that doesn't need Masquerading between
> > interfaces, but as we know that belongs to the LARTC list.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rudi.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>