| 1 |
On Monday 27 February 2006 20:06, Harry Putnam wrote: |
| 2 |
> /etc/conf.d/net currently looks like this: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> config_eth0=( "192.168.0.4 netmask 255.255.255.0" ) |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> routes_eth0=( |
| 7 |
> "default via 192.168.0.20" |
| 8 |
> ) |
| 9 |
> config_eth1=( "192.168.1.2 netmask 255.255.255.0" ) |
| 10 |
With both interfaces up what is the output of "ip route"? I don't see |
| 11 |
anything wrong with the configuration really, both networks are in different |
| 12 |
subnets so they should be seperate. However you may be getting a default |
| 13 |
route for eth1. You really don't need one, from the description you give you |
| 14 |
don't need a route at all for eth1. If all the computers on the |
| 15 |
192.168.0.0/24 network can all see each other's MAC addresses then there is |
| 16 |
no problem. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
> I wondering if that is the reason for my troubles. maybe I need to |
| 19 |
> add a static route for config_eth1? |
| 20 |
This should not be required for your setup as I understand it. I'd be realy |
| 21 |
interested in your arp table too, arp -a. |
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Zac Slade |
| 24 |
krakrjak@××××××××××.net |
| 25 |
ICQ:1415282 YM:krakrjak AIM:ttyp99 |
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives