| 1 |
Zac Slade <krakrjak@××××××××××.net> writes: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> With both interfaces up what is the output of "ip route"? I don't |
| 4 |
> see anything wrong with the configuration really, both networks are |
| 5 |
> in different subnets so they should be seperate. However you may be |
| 6 |
> getting a default route for eth1. You really don't need one, from |
| 7 |
> the description you give you don't need a route at all for eth1. If |
| 8 |
> all the computers on the 192.168.0.0/24 network can all see each |
| 9 |
> other's MAC addresses then there is no problem. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
Note, I've included the requested outputs for completeness but: |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
It all cleared up after a reboot. I didn't mention I made a domain |
| 14 |
name switch preceding the reported problem too. I suspect my |
| 15 |
nameserver cache hadn't had time to clear up (I have pretty long Time |
| 16 |
To Live values set). Although I really don't now if that would be an |
| 17 |
issue. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
ip route |
| 20 |
192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.2 |
| 21 |
192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.4 |
| 22 |
127.0.0.0/8 dev lo scope link |
| 23 |
default via 192.168.0.20 dev eth0 |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
>> I wondering if that is the reason for my troubles. maybe I need to |
| 26 |
>> add a static route for config_eth1? |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> This should not be required for your setup as I understand it. I'd be realy |
| 29 |
> interested in your arp table too, arp -a. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
arp -a |
| 32 |
fw.local.lan (192.168.0.20) at 00:09:5B:01:2F:E4 [ether] on eth0 |
| 33 |
fwobsd.local.lan (192.168.0.19) at 00:10:B5:91:85:88 [ether] on eth0 |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives