That sounds like a ridiculous implementation. Purchase a DSL router and keep the machines and server on the 10.10.0.x network.

Try Vyatta---the trial version will work. It comes with a manual, and it is free.

/

tim@tim-laptop ~ $ sudo apt-get install windows
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree       
Reading state information... Done
E: Couldn't find package windows...Thank Goodness!

I know you said you couldn't make any significant changes but if you don't have a default gateway on the 10.10.0.100 card settings (ie the gateway is on the 192.168.1.4 interface) and you use the 10.10.0.100 as a gateway on the terminal machines surely they would route out because on the server it would already have the routing table configured for the 192 interface and route traffic out from that.

It's not a major change as such and it 'should' allow you to do what you wanted with not a lot of impact.

Simon

The real world is not about exam scores, it's about ability.

 

Thank you Simon.

I have tried to configure 192.168.1.4 as the gateway on the 10.10.0.100 NIC and I configured both 10.10.0.100 and 192.168.1.4 as gateways on a terminal, but did not have any luck.  I also enabled IP routing on the server but that didn't work either.

I can make changes to gateways etc..., but I have to leave the static IP addresses alone (due to other software being configured for the system as is).  And I can change the IP's to DHCP.

Could you explain in more detail what you think the gateway settings should be?

Thanks

On the interface with 10.10.0.100 there shouldn't be a gateway set, because it's a multihomed server (meaning it has two different networks on the same box) you can leave one of the interfaces blank because the routing table will still have the right information to go beyond it's own ip subnet. For instance if the 10.10.0.100 based interface asked itself (as in the machine it is based in) for a route out onto the internet it would automatically choose the 192.168.1.4 route out because that's the way the routing table will have it.

Now with your terminals if you set them to have a gateway of 10.10.0.100 then the routing should automatically go out via 192.168.1.4.

You should have been given errors when you tried to set gateways outside of the subnet you're working on (ie if you try and set 192.168.1.4 on the 10.x network it should bitch that it can't do it).

I recently had a machine in my house that was connected to two different subnets (like you a 192.x and a 10.x environment), because I wanted to ensure that all internet traffic went out via one connection (I had two broadband connections for redundancy) I did exactly as I suggested here in my environment and it all just worked.

To recap.

On the server with the 10.10.0.100 interface, that should NOT have any gateway setting. Leave 192.168.1.4 alone.

On the terminals configure the gateway on them to be 10.10.0.100 and that should then route out the 192.168.2.4 interface.

Where you could come unstuck is with DNS, if you're using internal DNS servers you may need to put a forwarder address into it, this allows internal lookups to look externally for external dns entries.

Simon

The real world is not about exam scores, it's about ability.

 

Hi Simon,

I am trying this in a test environment and still cannot get it to work.

I have enabled IPRouting.

I have it setup exactly as you describe.  The 10.10.0.x terminal has a gateway of 10.10.0.100.

The 10.10.0.100 NIC has no gatway.
The 192.168.1.4 (actually 192.168.0.116) is setup with DHCP and there is no gateway installed (but it is picking up 192.168.0.1 (the router) as the gateway).  The router has the MAC address hardcoded to always give it .116.

Any other ideas?

Thanks in advance.,

Hi

Which operating system is installed at 2 nic pc???

Regards!