parker@mprgate.mpr.ca (Ross Parker) (03/12/91)
Hi...
I'm having a routing problem with the following configuration:
2 Sun 3/260 (one with SunOS 4.0.3, the other with SunOS 4.1),
one here in Vancouver, the other in Ottawa connected
with a 4800 baud dedicated line
Slip 4.0
gated 1.9.1.7
I can get the two systems talking to each other just fine (with or
without gated running). However, I'm trying to configure the
network (and gated) so that other systems on my local network can
see the system in Ottawa. I'm not having much luck.
Currently, the Ottawa systems and the systems here are using the
same IP address space - both in the class B address '134.87'. I can
understand routing failing with this configuration... with only one
network address, there's nothing to route *to*. I have, however,
tried setting up the SLIP line with it's own address (we have a
class C address at our disposal, and the route to Ottawa still isn't
reachable.
Here's a diagram of the situation:
Ottawa Vancouver
'mprott' 'mprgate'
------------------ ------------------
| | | |
|134.87.137.1 | | 134.87.131.12|
___|______^ | | ^_____|___
| | | |
| 192.67.9.1| Slip line |192.67.9.13 |
| ^_____|_____________________|______^ |
| | | |
------------------ ------------------
The ethernet interfaces are on 134.87..... The slip interfaces are
the 192.67.9 addresses, and are named mprott_slip and mprgate_slip
I have added a static route to the Ottawa office through the slip line
(e.g. 'route add mprott_slip mprgate_slip 1'). Gated is running on both
ends as 'RIP supplier' (I've tried 'RIP yes' and 'RIP pointtopoint' as
well), and I can see RIP traffic going across the line. None of the
other systems in my local ethernet, however, ever see mprott_slip, even
if I add a static route to it through mprgate_slip. In fact, I have to
add a static route to mprgate_slip (through mprgate) before the
Vancouver end of the slip line is visible from my other systems. Gated
has both ends of the SLIP line set up in 'trustedripgateways' and in
'sourceripgateways'.
Can anyone suggest what I may be doing wrong? I'm hesitant to try
installing the class 'C' address on all systems in Ottawa (because it's
a pain to do) until I know that that'll solve my problem. I'm hoping
that I've just configured gated incorrectly.
Thanks,
--
Ross Parker | Why do they put me down?
| Make out that I'm a clown?
parker@mprgate.mpr.ca | I drink scotch whisky all day long
uunet!ubc-cs!mprgate!parker | Yeah I'm gonna save my money
| (gonna put it all away...)
(604)293-5495 | 'Cause I'm a Scotsmanhlh@raybed2.msd.ray.com (HOWARD HANTMAN) (03/16/91)
In article <1991Mar11.190228.15146@mprgate.mpr.ca>, parker@mprgate.mpr.ca (Ross Parker) writes: > I'm having a routing problem with the following configuration: > > Currently, the Ottawa systems and the systems here are using the > same IP address space - both in the class B address '134.87'. I can > understand routing failing with this configuration... with only one > network address, there's nothing to route *to*. I have, however, > tried setting up the SLIP line with it's own address (we have a > class C address at our disposal, and the route to Ottawa still isn't > reachable. > I believe your problem is that you can't have a disjoint IP network. Putting a Class C address on the SLIP interfaces does not change the fact that the hosts in Vancouver on network 134.87 are on (or SHOULD be on) the same network as the hosts in Ottawa on network 134.87. I don't think its legal to set up a route to network X from network X via network Y! The easiest solution would probably be to use subnetting. From your diagram: > Ottawa Vancouver > 'mprott' 'mprgate' > ------------------ ------------------ > |134.87.137.1 | | 134.87.131.12| > ___|______^ | | ^_____|___ > | 192.67.9.1| Slip line |192.67.9.13 | > | ^_____|_____________________|______^ | > ------------------ ------------------ > The third byte of the IP address for the two LANS is already different. If that third byte is consistant at the two sites you can set the network mask to 255.255.255.0 and then Ottawa and Vancouver will have two separate IP networks legally linked by a third one. If due to number of nodes, you cannot devote an entire byte to subnets, you may need to look into changing whatever the smallest number of addresses is to get some number of significant bits to be different and subnet on that. A second solution, much clumsier but a last resort if there is no way to change addresses to meet the above, is to use proxy arping. On each local gateway, you would need to put a static route for each remote node you wish to reach. You would then also need to add proxy arp entries for each of the remote hosts. Local hosts would not require any routing information. As far as they would see all nodes on their network (134.87) would be directly reachable via ethernet, just as they should be. Howard Hantman Computing Consultant Software Development Center Raytheon Co. hlh@swlvx2.msd.ray.com ...{linus,applicon,cg-atla}!raybed2!hlh