[plug] Still not able to route to adsl

[bob]

Ok, some success ! :). I can ping 192.168.1/24 from 192.168.0/24 (but still 
can't see out when I set the ADSL as the default route)

This is now sort of behaving like it can't resolve IPs outside the LAN (once 
I change the default route to gw via 192.168.1.1). Some thing I should 
mention is that I'm running a DNS on the gateway. Is there any config-fu I 
should know ?

Interesting... although I can ping 192.168.1.1  from 192.168.0/24 I can't 
access the web config. 

On Saturday 01 May 2004 18:24, Matt Kemner wrote:
> On Sat, 1 May 2004, quoth bob:
> > > Does the ADSL router have a route to 192.168.0.0/24 via the debian
> > > gateway?
> >
> > Yes. 192.168.0.0/24  gw "Ip Ethernet 0" which is the LAN side of the
> > device.
>
> Unless I'm mistaken, "Ip Ethernet 0" will cause the gateway to be the
> ADSL router's IP address, not the Debian box's IP address

Ah... could be my bad assumption. I thought it was the equivalent to eth# 

> I don't have a Netcomm 1300 handy to check the config page, but if it
> looks anything like this:
> http://help.powerup.com.au/adsl/nb1300/nb1300_10.png
>
> then I would fill out the "Route configuration" with "Gateway" set to
> "Specify IP" -> IP of Debian box (192.168.1.x)

Done. As said... can now ping

> Again, having a static IP on the Debian box is essential, otherwise you
> don't know where to point the route.

Yes. Have assigned a static IP.

> > > Alternatively, does the debian gateway masquerade (NAT) packets from
> > > 192.168.0.0/24 so the ADSL gateway sees them as 192.168.1.x packets?
> >
> > That one is interesting as I have had conflicting replies to that Q
> > when I put it to the gateway. Is there a definitive way of finding out
> > ?
>
> You either add a route for the 192.168.0.x network to the ADSL router, or
> you Masquerade on the Debian box. Up to you.

> > Not sure about SNAT... is there an easy way to check this?
>
> Sorry, I used SNAT (Source NAT) as another word for Masquerade.  I didn't
> mean to confuse.

'Sok. :). I'd still like to know how to definitively check for 
masquerading/SNAT. Would doing both routing and SNAT be bad?

> > May not be as simple as [1], it had layers upon layers of changes made
> > to the routing. More a straw that broke the camels back perhaps. I did
> > notice that responses to route and route -n were becoming slow.
>
> You should not be able to kill your kernel by simply making routing
> changes, however there are and always will be kernel bugs so I guess you
> just triggered one.. :)

Doh :-#

> I wouldn't worry about it too much, unless you are able to reproduce it -
> in which case file a bug report.

The box has been very very stable to date so I am not overly worried. ~40 
day uptime just went bye-bye and the last down was for a kernel security 
patch.

> Regards,
>
>  - Matt

-- 
A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.
		-- Winston Churchill