From:192.168.0.101 TO:192.168.0.xxx VIA:192.168.2.1 ?

From:192.168.0.101 TO:192.168.0.xxx VIA:192.168.2.1 ?

Post by StephaneLeFo » Mon, 06 Dec 2010 01:52:31



Hi,

My home network is configured as follows:  an iMac G3 gets the
Internet connection from dial-up (!) and shares it through its en0
interface on 192.168.2.1 (a static, pre-defined setting on MacOS X
10.4 for sharing an Internet connection).  en0 also has an IP of:
192.168.0.101 as shown below:

en0: flags=8863<UP,BROADCAST,SMART,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
        inet6 fe80::20a:27ff:feab:3692%en0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x4
        inet 192.168.0.101 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
        inet 192.168.2.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.2.255
        ether 00:0a:27:ab:36:92
        media: autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>) status: active
        supported media: 10baseT/UTP 10baseT/UTP <full-duplex>
100baseTX 100baseTX <full-duplex> autoselect autosel

From en0, a crossover cable goes into a DLink DI-624 router on its WAN
connector.  DI-624 (192.168.0.1) then gives dynamic IPs from
192.168.0.2- 192.168.0.255.  Computers are all able to share their
resources and to go on the Internet.

The problem is that the iMac G3 cannot communicate with the other
machines on 192.168.0.x and I'd like to know if there is a way around
it?

Thanks.

 
 
 

From:192.168.0.101 TO:192.168.0.xxx VIA:192.168.2.1 ?

Post by Pascal Hambour » Mon, 06 Dec 2010 04:32:13


Note : this is a *Linux* networking group.

Hello,

StephaneLeFou a crit :

Quote:

> My home network is configured as follows:  an iMac G3 gets the
> Internet connection from dial-up (!) and shares it through its en0
> interface on 192.168.2.1 (a static, pre-defined setting on MacOS X
> 10.4 for sharing an Internet connection).  en0 also has an IP of:
> 192.168.0.101 as shown below:
[...]
> From en0, a crossover cable goes into a DLink DI-624 router on its WAN
> connector.  DI-624 (192.168.0.1) then gives dynamic IPs from
> 192.168.0.2- 192.168.0.255.  Computers are all able to share their
> resources and to go on the Internet.

Why do you have such a complicate setup, using a router instead of a
simple ethernet switch ?

Quote:> The problem is that the iMac G3 cannot communicate with the other
> machines on 192.168.0.x and I'd like to know if there is a way around
> it?

1) en0 is in a different network than the LAN side of the router, so it
should not have an address in the same subnet. Otherwise, the iMac
thinks the subnet is directly connected to en0, which is wrong : the
subnet is on the other side of the router.

2) Usually, SOHO routers like yours are "one-way" only : they only allow
"outbound" connections (from LAN to WAN), and allow "inbound" specific
connections only if a matching redirection is defined.

 
 
 

From:192.168.0.101 TO:192.168.0.xxx VIA:192.168.2.1 ?

Post by StephaneLeFo » Mon, 06 Dec 2010 07:36:42




Quote:> Note : this is a *Linux* networking group.

> Hello,

> StephaneLeFou a crit :

> > My home network is configured as follows: ?an iMac G3 gets the
> > Internet connection from dial-up (!) and shares it through its en0
> > interface on 192.168.2.1 (a static, pre-defined setting on MacOS X
> > 10.4 for sharing an Internet connection). ?en0 also has an IP of:
> > 192.168.0.101 as shown below:
> [...]
> > From en0, a crossover cable goes into a DLink DI-624 router on its WAN
> > connector. ?DI-624 (192.168.0.1) then gives dynamic IPs from
> > 192.168.0.2- 192.168.0.255. ?Computers are all able to share their
> > resources and to go on the Internet.

> Why do you have such a complicate setup, using a router instead of a
> simple ethernet switch ?

Haha.  I was expecting this question.  The reason is because there is
no high speed internet available here (for a week or two, at last!)
and I have to rely on dial-up.  So I had to share my Internet
connection among other computers and the Internet Sharing built-in
MacOSX seemed straightforward to me.

Quote:

> > The problem is that the iMac G3 cannot communicate with the other
> > machines on 192.168.0.x and I'd like to know if there is a way around
> > it?

> 1) en0 is in a different network than the LAN side of the router, so it
> should not have an address in the same subnet. Otherwise, the iMac
> thinks the subnet is directly connected to en0, which is wrong : the
> subnet is on the other side of the router.

> 2) Usually, SOHO routers like yours are "one-way" only : they only allow
> "outbound" connections (from LAN to WAN), and allow "inbound" specific
> connections only if a matching redirection is defined.

I will change the default router address to 192.168.2.2 and put the
other machines on the same network and see the outcome.

Thanks.

 
 
 

From:192.168.0.101 TO:192.168.0.xxx VIA:192.168.2.1 ?

Post by Pascal Hambour » Mon, 06 Dec 2010 08:40:25


StephaneLeFou a crit :

Quote:

>> 2) Usually, SOHO routers like yours are "one-way" only : they only allow
>> "outbound" connections (from LAN to WAN), and allow "inbound" specific
>> connections only if a matching redirection is defined.

> I will change the default router address to 192.168.2.2 and put the
> other machines on the same network and see the outcome.

I don't know what you expect from this, but it won't work.
The problem is the router. As long as the iMac is on the WAN site, it
won't be able to communicate with machines on the LAN side. Your options
are : replace the router with a switch or use it as a switch, i.e.
disable its embedded DHCP server and connect the iMac on a LAN port.
 
 
 

From:192.168.0.101 TO:192.168.0.xxx VIA:192.168.2.1 ?

Post by Richard Kettlewel » Mon, 06 Dec 2010 20:14:55




>> Why do you have such a complicate setup, using a router instead of a
>> simple ethernet switch ?

> Haha.  I was expecting this question.  The reason is because there is
> no high speed internet available here (for a week or two, at last!)
> and I have to rely on dial-up.  So I had to share my Internet
> connection among other computers and the Internet Sharing built-in
> MacOSX seemed straightforward to me.

That does not answer the question, which is really: why have you got two
routers (the Mac and the Dlink) rather than just one router (the Mac)
and a switch or hub?  You are attempting a much more complex
configuration than is really necessary (and as Pascal points out,
possibly using equipment that cannot do it).

--
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

 
 
 

1. Using 192.168.0 versus 192.168.1

I have a question regarding LAN addresses. As I understand it, the addresses
192.168.x.x are all available for use on a LAN and are never treated as "real"
by the rest of the Internet. When I first setup the LAN at my office I used
192.168.0.1, then 2, and 3. As the network grew I started organizing the
addresses in more meaningful clumps but always starting with 192.168.0. It
seems these days that most examples of LAN address in the HOWTO's etc. use
192.168.1.x. Is there some current convention that treats the zero group as
special in some way? I've never had trouble with it, but might using zero
one day lead to a problem?

Thanks,
Bill

2. q: ghost talk requests.

3. 192.168.0.0 vs. 192.168.1.0

4. Firewalls

5. Browsing 192.168.0.23 returns 192.168.0.11, why?

6. GCC 2.8.x Weirdness

7. Joining 192.168.1.* to 192.168.1.* with filtering for only MS SQL Server?

8. Netscape + Term 2.3.5 + Firewall

9. NAT Interface 192.168.1.x External 192.168.1.x Possible?

10. Routing Linux 192.168.10.x network to Dlink router on 192.168.1.x network

11. 192.168.0.* vs 192.168.1.*

12. Connection attempt to TCP 192.168.0.13:3128 from 192.168.0.12:2050

13. Can't network 3 PCs via simple 192.168.1.0 LAN with hub