/* HINT: Search archives @ http://www.indyramp.com/masq/ before posting! */


Actually with a 21 bit subnet mask (255.255.248.0), they are not in the
same subnet.  With the mask of 255.255.252.0, which is a 22 bit subet,
they still are not on the same network.  In fact they are not even
close.  The reason you can not masq them proabbly has sometime to do
with this fact.  The rules are set to masq the network you designate.
What exactly do you have as a masq rule set?


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> /* HINT: Search archives @ http://www.indyramp.com/masq/ before posting! */
> 
> What I mean is that nothing works. I can't PING, telnet, ftp or another
> other service from a machine on a different subnet (say, 172.16.4.16). I
> can do all of these things from 172.8.4.12, which is on the same subnet.
> 
> Sean
> 
> 
>                     raf
>                     <[EMAIL PROTECTED]        To:     [EMAIL PROTECTED], 
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>                     om.au>               cc:
>                                          Subject:     Re: [Masq] IP Masquerading and 
>split subnets
>                     06/06/00
>                     10:27 AM
> 
> 
> 
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 
> > /* HINT: Search archives @ http://www.indyramp.com/masq/ before posting!
> */
> >
> >
> > I am running a Linux 2.2.15 kernel which firewalls a reserved IP address
> > space with a split subnet (172.16.0.0/21). IP Masquerading seems to work
> ok
> > for all machines that are on the same subnet (172.16.8.0-172.16.11.255) ,
> > but not for any machines on other subnets though all of these systems can
> > be reached via ping. The reserved IP address for the Masquerading server
> is
> > 172.16.11.240.
> >
> > The clients are Windows NT 4.0 and Windows 95 systems. They are
> configured
> > with 172.16.11.240 as the gateway and a netmask of 255.255.252.0.
> >
> > Does anyone know of a way to make masquerading work for split subnet
> hosts
> > or am I missing something truly simple?
> 
> what do you mean by "seems not to work" exactly?
> 
> Is traffic from internal subnets not being masqueraded on their way out?
> Is traffic between internal subnets being masqueraded when it shouldn't?
> Is traffic between internal subnets not being masqueraded when it should?
> 
> raf
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Masq maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Admin requests can be handled at http://www.indyramp.com/masq-list/ -- THIS INCLUDES 
>UNSUBSCRIBING!
> or email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 
> PLEASE read the HOWTO and search the archives before posting.
> You can start your search at http://www.indyramp.com/masq/
> Please keep general linux/unix/pc/internet questions off the list.

_______________________________________________
Masq maillist  -  [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Admin requests can be handled at http://www.indyramp.com/masq-list/ -- THIS INCLUDES 
UNSUBSCRIBING!
or email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

PLEASE read the HOWTO and search the archives before posting.
You can start your search at http://www.indyramp.com/masq/
Please keep general linux/unix/pc/internet questions off the list.

Reply via email to