|
||||||||
Greg, The encryption is an overhead that, for this situation, is not necessary to the end applications. I attempted to use the gif pseudo-device, but this has not worked. I've done a simple: ifconfig gif0 create ifconfig gif0 tunnel 192.168.1.197 192.168.1.198 up ifconfig gif0 192.168.3.1 192.168.2.1 netmask 255.255.0.0 up And vice-versa for the other side. I am still not able to ping between the devices. Have I forgotten something for these IP tunnels, or is there a conflict with a firewall that is currently set to pass all through the WAN? Thanks for your help Steven --- Greg Miller <gmiller at mainstaydata dot com> wrote: > Sounds like an IPSEC tunnel would work best for > this. They are easy to > setup and it deals with routing traffic from net A > to net B and vice-versa > > -- > Greg Miller > www.mainstaydata.com > o. 616.855.2559 > c. 616.890.7813 > f. 616.777.0504 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Steven Shatz [mailto:steven underscore shatz at yahoo dot com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 2:01 PM > To: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > Subject: [m0n0wall] Routing across different subnets > and m0n0wall devices > > Hello all, > > I have a question as to whether anyone has set up > routing between m0n0wall devices such that clients > on > either m0n0wall device can access clients on the > other > m0n0wall device, with each m0n0wall device having > different subnets. > > My desired configuration is two m0n0wall devices: > > m0n0wallA > LAN: 192.168.2.1 (serves clients 192.168.2.0/24 via > DHCP) > WAN: 192.168.1.198 > > m0n0wallB: > LAN: 192.168.3.1 (serves clients 192.168.3.0/24 via > DHCP) > WAN: 192.168.1.197 > > ClientA: (located under m0n0wallA) > 192.168.2.199 > > ClientB: (located under m0n0wallB) > 192.168.3.199 > > > Now, is there any way that Client B can reach Client > A, or vice-versa? > > I tried using static routes in the kernel by adding > routes from the m0n0wallA to m0n0wallB's WAN (route > add 192.168.3.0 -netmask 255.255.255.0 > 192.168.1.197) > with no success. The traceroutes terminate at > 192.168.1.197 and don't continue routing down into > the > subnet 192.168.3.0/24. > > I tried using proxy ARP and server-NAT to expose the > subnets, but by the time the ARPs reach the > 192.168.1.1 subnet, ARPs aren't triggered and are > sent > on their way to the next router specified by > "default". > > Are there any ideas as to what I may be missing or > how > I can address this issue? > > Thanks > Steven > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > For additional commands, e-mail: > m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: > m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > For additional commands, e-mail: > m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com |