[NTLUG:Discuss] route command.........

[clyde swann]

thanks for your input.  it was a grab for a straw.  i agree route is not the 
issue.  my brain must have been a bit twisted.

as to the other things you mentioned, firewall rules (input, forward and 
output) are all set to 'accept' for testing purposes, with a redirect to the 
default port (3128) for transparent proxying.  squid is also set to receive 
from all sources/destinations. i think once i solve the issue with not being 
able to ping to the outside world from an intenal networked machine thru the 
firewall most all issues will be resolved.  thanks again.


>From: Richard Cobbe <cobbe at directlink.net>
>Reply-To: discuss at ntlug.org
>To: discuss at ntlug.org
>Subject: Re: [NTLUG:Discuss] route command.........
>Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 17:29:31 -0500 (CDT)
>
>Lo, on Tuesday, 20 June, 2000, clyde swann did write:
>
> > can someone please explain; when using the 'route' command to route 
>packets
> > to an interface (eth0, eth1, etc), what is the difference in how packets 
>or
> > handle when the gateway option is used versus when it is not used?  
>example:
> >   route -add 192.168.0.1 mask 255.255.255.0 gw eth1
> >   route -add 192.168.0.1 mask 255.255.255.0 eth1
> >
> > the syntax may not be exactly correct in the above examples, but you get 
>the
> > idea.  i want to know the difference in how packets are handled when the
> > 'gw' option is use, as in the first example, versus when it is not used, 
>as
> > in the second example.  i'm just wondering does certain info get 
>filtered in
> > the different instances?  not able to figure out why my netscape browser
> > gets thru my firewall/proxy/router ok, but can't retrieve mail using the
> > same browser.
> >
>
>Be glad to explain this, although I'll start by saying that this probably
>doesn't have anything to do with your mail problems, especially since HTTP
>traffic apparently works fine.
>
>And you're right, the syntax isn't exactly correct.  A more likely
>situation is the following:
>
>     route add -net 192.168.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 eth1
>     route add default gw 192.168.0.1
>
>The first command -- no gw -- says: any packet destined to a machine with
>address 192.168.0.* gets routed directly to that machine, out the device
>eth1.
>
>The second command, with the gateway, establishes the default route, for
>packets not covered by any of the other routing table entries.  Here, it
>says to send those packets to the gateway machine 192.168.0.1, with the
>assumption that it will forward them on to their destination.  Routing to
>the gateway is performed as directed by the other table entries.
>
>So, since the route tables don't distinguish based on TCP port number, it
>strikes me as unlikely that an error here is causing your problems.  It's
>hard to say without more info, but I'd bet on a problem in your firewall
>config.  Are you letting connections to both ports 25 (SMTP) and 110 (POP3)
>out?  Are you letting responses from them back in?
>
>Richard
>
>_______________________________________________
>http://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com