Link to home
Start Free TrialLog in
Avatar of ttsenis
ttsenis

asked on

connecting two lans

Hi,
   i have LAN1 with 155.17.0.0 and LAN2 with 155.16.0.0 . A linux setup has 2 NICs with addresses 155.17.16.35 and 155.16.16.36 . i type "ip route" and the shell shows
"155.17.0.0/16 dev eth1  proto kernel  scope link  src 155.17.16.35
155.16.0.0/16 dev eth0  proto kernel  scope link  src 155.16.16.36
default via 155.16.16.100 dev eth0"

No from what i understood
if i insert "ip route append 155.16.0.0/16 via 155.17.16.35" and "ip route append 155.16.0.0/16 via 155.17.16.35" i will  have a simple gateway. But the pings from the LAN1 to LAN2 does not work any ideas?
Avatar of grblades
grblades
Flag of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland image

Hi ttsenis,
All you need to do is configure the network cards with their correct address, set a single default gateway if required and then turn on ip forwarding.
The command to turn on ip forwarding is "sysctl -w net.ipv4.ip_forward=1"
If you want to make forwarding permanent you can edit the entry in /etc/sysctl.conf
Avatar of ttimonen
ttimonen

That sysctl command does the same as
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward

Also things to check:
Can you ping all the machines from the junctionpoint machine?
Is your iptables policies for INPUT, FORWARD and OUTPUT set to ACCEPT and the firewall settings are clean?

Just checking that you are aware that you have to set those (not exactly those, but corrected versions of those, and different in different lans) routing lines to the client machines in the different lans to get it working.
Avatar of ttsenis

ASKER

Well when i decided to bridge those 2 NICs the ip route returned :
155.17.0.0/16 dev eth1 ... src 155.17.16.35
155.16.0.0/16 dev eth0 ... src 155.16.16.36
With these 2 route roules the linux worked perfectly but without the ability to transfer packets between these to LANs.
Then I decided to make these 2 NICs as a bridge for my 2 LANs so i decide to make the gateaway technic that i described it previously. grblades proposed to make ip forwarding. I did set the ipv4.ip_forward flag but now i get back at ping command the message unreachable network. I do not have any kind of firewall. ttimonen please instruct how to see and change the iptables policy. Also any ideas to see if the rules inside the iptables really works. Eventually if i want to route packet from a certain NIC to other what argument do i use for the ip command syntax because  man ip  does not have a relative topic?
   
     Regards,
       teo
to clean up iptables (that is, disable the firewall),
------------------
#Deletes all rules from every built-in chain in default table
iptables --flush
#Deletes all rules from every built-in chain in nat(Network Address Translation) table
iptables -t nat --flush
#Deletes all usermade chains
iptables --delete-chain
#Changes default policies for the filter to accept all traffic.
iptables --policy OUTPUT ACCEPT
iptables --policy INPUT ACCEPT
iptables --policy FORWARD ACCEPT
------------------

That should get rid of a possible firewall problem.

The output of "ip route" looks fine for the gateway.
How the clients are configured?
Assuming that the client in network 17 has one NIC named as eth0, there should be something like
155.16.0.0/16 via 155.17.16.35 dev eth0
in the output of "ip route" besides the normal local routing .
(the above can be archived with command "ip route add 155.16.0.0/16 via 155.17.16.35").

And symmetrically, in network 16 there should be
155.17.0.0/16 via 155.16.16.36 dev eth0
.
Now each machine should know where to send those packages when they are not located in local network.


Alternative way to configure this is to set clients to blindly use default gateway and configure the default gw to work smartly with all packages.


ASKER CERTIFIED SOLUTION
Avatar of gn0
gn0

Link to home
membership
This solution is only available to members.
To access this solution, you must be a member of Experts Exchange.
Start Free Trial
Avatar of ttsenis

ASKER

well,
       i think that the problem is at peripheral w98 machines. I suppose i did not put the proper gateways. I will try it . By the way gn0 reffers to dynamic routing, does my SUSE 7.1 has such a router (is it consider built in.)
i dont know if u can call it 'dynamic' routing .... another term like 'link' or 'connected' or better yet 'implied' routing might be more appropriate....

GN.
gn0:

It doesn't cause any errors on my config (well, 192.168.1 and 192.168.2 network with those routing settings).

The thing you are suggesting implies that the machine that connects those two networks do work as a default gateway; that is not always the case, possible or wanted. (that was my option two in my previous post, though).
ttimonen....

aah.... upon carefully re-reading what u said i now see what u were saying.... but since the clients were w98, ur use of 'ip route' threw me off-track.....
i thought that u were doing "ip route add 155.16.0.0/16 via 155.17.16.35" on the gw .... which was directly connected to the '155.16.0.0/16' network ... this would result in "RTNETLINK answers: File exists" ....

ttsenis....
u only said he had the 2 networks - if however u cannot change the gateways on any of the machines u could also add the routes (as ttimonen said)....
on the LAN1 pcs....
route add 155.16.0.0 mask 255.255.0.0 155.17.16.35

on the LAN2 pcs....
route add 155.17.0.0 mask 255.255.0.0 155.16.16.36

(u might need to put this in a '.bat' file and place a shortcut to the '.bat' file in the startup group... or somewhere where it would be run when the machine boots up ..... w98 hasn't the option to make routes permanent (as nt/2k or later))

u can leave the gateway settings to where ever u need default traffic to go....

GN.