From owner-freebsd-questions Fri Feb 28 10:53:51 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id KAA11101 for questions-outgoing; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:53:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from freebie.brann.org ([207.122.63.57]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id KAA11084 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 10:53:17 -0800 (PST) Received: (from jbrann@localhost) by freebie.brann.org (8.8.4/8.8.2) id NAA17258; Fri, 28 Feb 1997 13:52:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199702281852.NAA17258@freebie.brann.org> Subject: Re: setting up two ethernet devices--seperate networks In-Reply-To: from Brandon Gillespie at "Feb 28, 97 11:00:19 am" To: brandon@cold.org (Brandon Gillespie) Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 13:52:43 -0500 (EST) Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: John Brann Organisation: Not while I'm at home X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL28 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Brandon Gillespie wrote... > Ok, I've done this before with a ppp(tun) device and an ethernet > device--but mostly by luck and brute force. Now I'm trying to setup a > multi-homed machine (two ethernet devices). The ethernet devices _do not > conflict_. I know this because I can use either device on the open network > (206.81.134.0) by just changing which device is setup on that network and > plugging in the right network cable and rebooting. But I can't get the > private network (192.168.1.0) to work at the same time. At the moment I > am _not_ using the kernel with IPFIREWALL--I just want to connect TO this > machine. The networks are: > > 192.168.1.0 > 192.168.1.1 -- this machine on the localnet > 192.168.1.5 -- another machine on the local net > 206.81.134.0 -- open net > 206.81.135.97 -- this machine on the open net > > >From my sysconfig: > > network_interfaces="lo0 ed0 ed1" > > ifconfig_lo0="inet 127.0.0.1" > ifconfig_ed0="inet 206.81.134.97 netmask 255.255.255.0" > ifconfig_ed1="inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0" > > I am not defining any static routes--should I be? I ended up forcing my > localnet machine to work with route add -net 192.168.1.0 -interface > ed1--it always whines when I run it--but it works. This doesn't work for > me now tho :b > > For now all I want to do is simply be able to ping .5 from .1 on the > localnet. When I do it now I get: > > > ping 192.168.1.5 > PING 192.168.1.5 (192.168.1.5): 56 data bytes > ping: sendto: Host is down > ping: wrote 192.168.1.5 64 chars, ret=-1 > ping: sendto: Host is down > ping: wrote 192.168.1.5 64 chars, ret=-1 > > Help? > > Thanks.. > > -Brandon Gillespie > Hmm, I am doing this, completely painlessly. I re-configged my ethernet cards and modified sysconfig for them - and it worked. I also am not firewalling, I'm using 10.0.0.0 as my local net. I've done this on 2.1.5 and 2.2-BETA. No static routing is required, unless you're trying to forward packets (which I can't because of the bogus network...) Please send me dmesg output of the configuration info for the two cards, and the results of 'netstat -nr', before you add the static route. jb -- Prohibit work, prohibit pay - people are dying! Situationist International slogan finger jbrann@brann.org for pgp public key