Hummh, maybe the following question may seem silly, but have you enabled ip routing on your CentOS box ? What's the result of cat /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward ? If you have enabled ip routing , maybe have a look at your firewall rules to be sure that you don't drop any packets ... On Sun, 2006-06-18 at 15:06 -0400, Michael B Allen wrote: > I have two interfaces on a centos machine with IPs 192.168.2.15 and > 192.168.3.15. The routing table is: > > # route > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface > 192.168.3.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 > 192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 > 169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 > default 192.168.2.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 > > The gateway 192.168.2.1 is a wireless router on which I have a static > route for 192.168.3.0/24 to 192.168.2.15. > > The problem is I cannot communicate between these networks. If I ping > from a machine on 192.168.2.0 to a machine on 192.168.3.0 it never makes > it. If I run tcpdump -i eth0 on the machine with two nics, I can see the > ICMP packets coming in so I know the static route on the wireless router > is working. If I run tcpdump -i eth1 I cannot see the ICMP packets. So the > routing is wrong. I can successfully ping the machine on the 192.168.3.0 > network from the machine with two interfaces. > > I would think that a packet sent from 192.168.2.100 for 192.168.3.128 > would go to the gateway, get sent to 192.168.2.15 which it would go > though the above listed routing table, match 192.168.3.0 and get sent > to eth1. What am I doing wrong? > > Mike > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060618/cf740f30/attachment-0004.sig>