|
||||||||||
Problem Continued: I am having trouble giving a non-local subnet access to the internet via m0n0wall. Apparent Cause: The static route I have placed appears to be ignored by the m0n0 router Let me elaborate: I have a windows server multi-homed using two NICs: Interface IP's are: 202.22.9.1 202.23.9.1 So, I've got what I call a ".22 Subnet" -and a- ".23 Subnet" FACTS: My m0n0 router is on the .22 subnet and all clients on the .22 subnet can browse the internet. All .22 clients can ping all .23 clients (with one exception) All .23 clients can ping all .22 clients The above exception is: the m0n0wall router (which is a .22 client) cannot ping the .23 subnet - a ping attempt results in a "no route to host" response for each packet, but it can ping the local subnet and ping the internet (and as said earlier, it gives the .22 subnet internet access) All clients, (EVEN on the .23 subnet) are capable of pinging, or even logging into the m0n0 router however. (The infamous "one way ping" situation LOL) At any rate, I would think, of course, that it's a routing issue, but I've placed my "Static Route" into the GUI which is now displayed as such: Interface Network Gateway Description LAN 202.23.0.0/16 202.22.9.1 Fiber And via your/Manuel's help I used netstat -rn to show me the complete table: $ netstat -rn Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire default 108.0.42.1 UGSc 3 19237 vr0 108.0.42/24 link#1 UC 1 0 vr0 108.0.42.1 00:40:10:18:60:d8 UHLW 3 0 vr0 1197 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 0 0 lo0 202.22 link#2 UC 8 0 vr1 202.22.1.1 00:04:5a:58:f1:bd UHLW 0 114 vr1 1085 202.22.1.2 00:20:78:07:55:ac UHLW 0 1944 vr1 1093 202.22.1.3 00:40:05:87:81:7b UHLW 1 2269 vr1 1175 202.22.1.4 00:20:78:07:4d:3d UHLW 0 5487 vr1 1025 202.22.1.6 00:02:a5:56:e3:4e UHLW 0 143 vr1 1086 202.22.1.8 00:04:5a:7b:74:aa UHLW 0 3926 vr1 971 202.22.1.22 00:48:54:64:fd:bb UHLW 3 10917 vr1 882 202.22.9.1 00:02:a5:e7:06:e5 UHLW 2 182 vr1 1175 202.23 202.22.9.1 UGSc 1 11 vr1 Again I realize that the 202. address range is in actuality a routable address range, but I have modified them for the mailing list from their "real" non-routable addresses to keep public information about our local network down to a minimum. Please interpret 202 addresses as non-routable, local addresses. The 108 addresses are modified public addresses. Since, I don't see why it'd be necessary or even beneficial to give out my "real" public IP, I won't :) Everything appears to be correct, have I missed something? Maybe this is an issue with m0n0 or FreeBSD? Thanks for your time, Brandon -----Original Message----- From: Brandon Holland [mailto:brandon at cookssaw dot com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:02 AM To: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch Subject: FW: [m0n0wall] Static routes not working in 24! -----Original Message----- From: Brandon Holland [mailto:brandon at cookssaw dot com] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 9:00 AM To: 'Manuel Kasper' Subject: RE: [m0n0wall] Static routes not working in 24! Thanks for the quick reply! 202.23 202.22.9.1 UGSc 0 4 vr1 (again, IP's have been changed slightly to protect :) ) So what is my problem? I told it how to get to .23 (via 202.22.9.1) But it says no route to host. That isn't making sense. -----Original Message----- From: Manuel Kasper [mailto:mk at neon1 dot net] Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2004 8:43 AM To: Brandon Holland Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Static routes not working in 24! On 21.01.2004, at 15:30, Brandon Holland wrote: > I tried to "display" the routes using exec.php, but I don't know how to > do it. Route by itself gives me some command line syntax, without the > purpose of the switches, and I tried route print too :-) netstat -rn should display them. - Manuel --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 |