Re: [coLinux-devel] TCP Forwarding? Or General Networking Questions..?

[Richard G. <ric...@ri...>]

Ian,

It's not authentication... apparently XP removes the bridging and ICS
options when in a domain. They're simply not there.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ian C. Blenke" <ia...@bl...>
To: "Richard Goodwin" <ric...@ri...>
Cc: "Cooperative Linux Development" <col...@li...>
Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2004 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [coLinux-devel] TCP Forwarding? Or General Networking
Questions..?


> On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 10:00:04AM -0600, Richard Goodwin wrote:
> > Ok,
> >
> > So on my work machine, where I'd most dearly love to run cL, I am unable
to
> > Bridge or enable ICS because we are members of a domain. So, I need to I
> > guess use the IP forwarding of XP or figure out some other solution.
>
> Why does bridging or ICS affect your authentication? I'm confused.
>
> > Here's the setup:
> >
> > Local Area Connection 2: "corporate" network, gets DHCP and DNS
addresses
> > from network. For arguments sake, let's say it's IP is 199.199.199.199,
and
> > the gateway is 199.199.199.1, and subnet mask is 255.255.255.252 (which
it
> > actually is)
>
> That's impossible. If your IP is 199.199.199.199 with a 255.255.255.252
> mask, your IP is the broadcast (all ones) address on the 199.199.199.196
> network. In that case, I would think it far more likely that your IP
> would be 199.199.199.198, with a default route through your router at
> 199.199.199.197. The 199.199.199.1 IP would be on a completely different
> netblock, unreachable directly.
>
> You have a host on a /30 segment? Bridging probably is right out for you
> then.. but why does ICS block your SMB connectivity?
>
> If you meant a 255.255.252.0 netblock, then bridging would make sense.
> I'll bet this is what you have, as a /22 block with 1024 hosts is far
> more common on Enterprise networks.
>
> > TAP: You know what this is ;-) Currently set to 192.168.0.1, and the
gateway
> > set to the IP of the LAC#2 (don't know if that's right or not)
>
> You don't want a gateway on that interface. You only want one "default
gateway" on a
> box (where packets not destined for any local static routes are sent).
>
> On your Linux image, you would set your default gateway 192.168.0.1.
>
> Think of gateway as the "gateway of last resort". If a packet is
> destined for somewhere your machine doesn't know how to get to, it hands
> it off to the gateway for it to deliver the traffic for you.
>
> > eth0 in cL: currently set to 192.168.0.40, and gateway set to TAP IP.
>
> That is correct.
>
> > I did the IPEnableRouter = 1 in the registry and rebooted, and I can
ping
> > TAP and LAC#2 from cL, but can't ping past LAC#2. Am I missing something
> > obvious?
>
> Yes. Your network beyond your 199.199.199.x gateway does not have a route
> to get back to the 192.168.0.0/24 network. Packets go out, but your
enterprise
> network does not know how to give them back.
>
> There are two solutions to this problem:
>
> 1. You need to enable ICS. All traffic will then appear to be coming from
your
>    LAC#2. ICS is glorified Network Address Translation (NAT).
> 2. Convince your enterprise network guys to add a route to your little
private
>    virtual segment on the routers.
>
> - Ian C. Blenke <ia...@bl...>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004
> Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration
> See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA.
> http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn
> _______________________________________________
> coLinux-devel mailing list
> coL...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/colinux-devel
>
>