| 1 |
Hi, |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:23:53 +0100 |
| 4 |
"Daniel Pielmeier" <daniel.pielmeier@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> > No, that's (usually) correct. But in the route excerpt you've cited |
| 7 |
> > above (please post "route -n" next time!) the route for "localhost" was |
| 8 |
> > set to "dev eth0". Also, the subnet was a /24 one, instead of the |
| 9 |
> > usual /8 for localhost. So there's some inconsistency between that file |
| 10 |
> > and the routes. The /etc/hosts you've shown looks good, please post |
| 11 |
> > dnsmasq's config. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Here are the files you have requested! |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> route -n on router |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Kernel IP routing table |
| 18 |
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface |
| 19 |
> 88.67.16.1 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 |
| 20 |
> 192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 |
| 21 |
> 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo |
| 22 |
> 0.0.0.0 88.67.16.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0 |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Ah, OK, so *this* is fine. The route for eth0 is correct. So it's just |
| 25 |
the name resolving on the router that returns "localhost" when being |
| 26 |
asked for the hostname for 192.168.0.1. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Since all of this isn't about name resolving, we probably can even |
| 29 |
leave out that dnsmasq thingy. But your config is essentially this: |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> interface=eth0 |
| 32 |
> dhcp-range=192.168.0.1,192.168.0.255,72h |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
If this is supposed to work, chose another beginning of that range, at |
| 35 |
least 192.168.0.2. But I think dnsmasq is even clever enough not to |
| 36 |
issue its own address to clients. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
I'll write a separate post about the firewalling issues in a moment. |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-hwh |
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives