| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 11:45:13 +0100 "Daniel Pielmeier" |
| 4 |
<daniel.pielmeier@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> > This here: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > /etc/hosts |
| 9 |
> > > |
| 10 |
> > > 127.0.0.1 localhost |
| 11 |
> > > 192.168.0.1 gentoo-vdr.linux gentoo-vdr |
| 12 |
> > > 192.168.0.2 gentoo.linux gentoo |
| 13 |
> > > ::1 localhost |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> I think localhost is assigned to 127.0.0.1, or did i misunderstood |
| 16 |
> something? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
No, that's (usually) correct. But in the route excerpt you've cited |
| 19 |
above (please post "route -n" next time!) the route for "localhost" was |
| 20 |
set to "dev eth0". Also, the subnet was a /24 one, instead of the |
| 21 |
usual /8 for localhost. So there's some inconsistency between that file |
| 22 |
and the routes. The /etc/hosts you've shown looks good, please post |
| 23 |
dnsmasq's config. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> the whole iptables config is generated by shorewall, i recognised this |
| 26 |
> different namings too. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Hm, OK, you're sure the tables were empty and Gentoo's iptables save |
| 29 |
feature doesn't somehow get in your way? But anyway, the NAT/forwarding |
| 30 |
can't work for the reason I mentioned (empty FORWARD chain and DROP |
| 31 |
policy). |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-hwh |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives