| 1 |
On Jan 17, 2008 2:40 AM, kashani <kashani-list@××××××××.net> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Mick wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> > I agree that this is not related to the ISP. What you probably need to do is |
| 5 |
> > set up RIP2 in your router 1, to be able to recognize other subdomains |
| 6 |
> > (192.168.2.XXX). Then it'll process packets coming from that subdomain. The |
| 7 |
> > router manual ought to help you out on setting this up. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> <grumpy network engineer> |
| 10 |
> Sure let's make something simple really complicated. And sucky. |
| 11 |
> </> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Is there some sort of dynamic routing happening on this network? |
| 14 |
> Different possible paths to get to machines? Links we might want to |
| 15 |
> balance traffic over? Other routers sending route updates? If not, then |
| 16 |
> why would we want the added complexity of a routing protocol? There are |
| 17 |
> all of two routes on this network and they never change. Static routing |
| 18 |
> is the right choice and functionally no different than if the route had |
| 19 |
> been inserted via a routing protocol. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> No routing protocol will make router1 NAT addresses it doesn't want to. |
| 22 |
> Adding that subnet to the NAT list will, but that is outside the routing |
| 23 |
> table or it would have already worked. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
Well, I had earlier tried enabling the RIP2 option in Router1 but no change |
| 27 |
in results. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
For the moment I have given up on this configuration. I am now trying |
| 30 |
to setup up the network as one segment only 192.168.1.x.. Using |
| 31 |
the Router2 in client mode is one option. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Thanks for all the respones.. |
| 34 |
Sathish |
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives