James B. Byrne wrote: > > On 09/04/12 12:18 PM, James B. Byrne wrote: >> There are presently two subnets on the lan, 192.168.209.0 and >> 192.168.209.0. I believe that the present netmask is correct in these >> circumstances. > > um, those are both the same? I assume you meant one of them to be > different? > > > You are correct. I mistyped. > > I have host A with eth0[aaa.bbb.ccc.A] and eth1[192.168.216.A] > > I have host B with eth0[aaa.bbb.ccc.B] and eth1[192.168.209.B] > > and I have host C as the gateway with eth0 being the WAN and eth1 > being the LAN. Eth1 on C has the address [aaa.bbb.ccc.1] assigned to > it and has the alias [192.168.0.1] as well. > > I want traffic from 192.168.216.A addressed to 192.168.209.B to go to > eth1 on B. Instead it goes to Eth0 on C where it dies as one would > expect. > > I am not terribly familiar with routing so I expect that I am doing > something wrong that is obvious yet invisible to me. This is an > experimental set up so that I can explore these issues before > inflicting them on my unsuspecting users. > could you show the result of the route command on host C?