Zac Slade <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > With both interfaces up what is the output of "ip route"? I don't > see anything wrong with the configuration really, both networks are > in different subnets so they should be seperate. However you may be > getting a default route for eth1. You really don't need one, from > the description you give you don't need a route at all for eth1. If > all the computers on the 192.168.0.0/24 network can all see each > other's MAC addresses then there is no problem.
Note, I've included the requested outputs for completeness but: It all cleared up after a reboot. I didn't mention I made a domain name switch preceding the reported problem too. I suspect my nameserver cache hadn't had time to clear up (I have pretty long Time To Live values set). Although I really don't now if that would be an issue. ip route 192.168.1.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.1.2 192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.4 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo scope link default via 192.168.0.20 dev eth0 >> I wondering if that is the reason for my troubles. maybe I need to >> add a static route for config_eth1? > This should not be required for your setup as I understand it. I'd be realy > interested in your arp table too, arp -a. arp -a fw.local.lan (192.168.0.20) at 00:09:5B:01:2F:E4 [ether] on eth0 fwobsd.local.lan (192.168.0.19) at 00:10:B5:91:85:88 [ether] on eth0 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
