[plug] rooted routing :(

[Dean Holland]

What if you set the NB1300 to Bridged(RFC1483) mode and setup a pppoe 
client on the gateway? That way you're dealing with two PPP connections 
on the same gateway - might be easier on routing.

Of course you may have your reasons for not wanting to do it that way! :)

Dean

bob wrote:

> Well I'm obviously missing a piece of the puzzle with regard to routing and 
> network segments. Some pointers to where I can find clue sticks would be 
> appreciated.
> 
> I am transitioning to ADSL (Netcom NB1300+4) from a dialup.
> 
> The current setup is
> 
> PPP dialup
> 	|
> Gateway/firewall
> 	eth0(192.168.0.x)
> 	|
> hosts on LAN
> 
> Works a treat. 
> 
> What I would like to do ( for at least a brief transition period ) is 
> 
> PPP dialup
> 	|
> 	|	ADSL 
> 	|	|
> 	|	eth1 (192.168.1.x)
> Gateway/firewall
> 	eth0 (192.168.0.x)
> 	|
> hosts on LAN
> 
> What I can't even get going is 
> 
> 	ADSL 
> 	|
> 	eth1 (192.168.1.x)
> Gateway/firewall
> 	eth0 (192.168.0.x)
> 	|
> hosts on LAN
> 
> although I can talk to the ADSL config web server I can't seem to route 
> stuff out through eth1. I _thought_ it was as easy as - on the 
> Gateway/firewal - del the default gw route (ppp0) add the ADSL box's IP as 
> a host route and then add eth1 as the new default gw... apparently not :(.
> 
> I had a theory it might have been the iptables fw... nope. I briefly cleared 
> it and still no show.
> 
> Adding a route to 192.168.1.x to hosts on LAN and setting that as its 
> default GW appears to work for a while then fails (is this a problem with 
> multiple paths to the ADSL box? ) and does not achieve what I want in any 
> case.
> 
> Attempts to look back into my network on the ports I have routed on the ADSL 
> box to the Gateway/firewall - from spark - gets "Unable to connect to 
> remote host: Connection refused". (even with the fw down)
> 
> I have tried everything I can think of and read so much I am becoming even 
> more confused as to how to proceed - I would very much appreciate some 
> assistance in sorting this out.
> 
> Thanks.
>