[OpenIndiana-discuss] OpenIndiana server networking problem.

[James Carlson]

On 07/01/13 17:33, DormitionSkete at hotmail.com wrote:
>> Is 192.168.0.1 your NAT box (your "router")?
>>
> 
> 192.168.0.1 is the cisco router.
> 
> 192.168.0.4 is the physical nic of the machine.  (theotokos.dsicons.net)
> 
> 192.168.0.3 is the "routert3" zone.

OK.  That's a start.  But that seems dirt simple, with the Cisco device
(apparently) configured to provide NAT service to the network, and
absolutely no ipfilter or port forwarding or NAT or anything like it
needed on your system.

That's where I'm confused.  I cannot understand what you're attempting
to do or why you have things configured the way you do.

The typical ways to configure a home network like this depend on what
sort of service you get from your ISP.

If your ISP gives you multiple real IP addresses (192.168/16 is an RFC
1918 block; it's not routeable and not a public address), then one way
to work things is to disable NAT in the Cisco box and set up ipfilter on
the OpenIndiana system to provide filtering, NAT, and port forwarding as
needed for the rest of your network.  But, clearly, you're not doing that.

If your ISP only gives you a single address, and you must use NAT in the
Cisco box, then set up port forwarding for any of the services you wish
to advertise to the world ON THE CISCO BOX.  The guy doing the NAT must
be the guy doing any port forwarding; it makes no sense at all
otherwise.  In that case, you most likely wouldn't want or need ipfilter
configuration on the OpenIndiana system, except perhaps for some simple
stateless filters; no NAT or forwarding.

What you're describing doesn't seem to fit any of the typical usage
patterns, so I'm confused.

>>> How do I get rid of the third line?
>>
>> What's the "third line?"  Do you mean this one?
>>
>>> 192.168.0.0          192.168.0.4          U         4         83 bnx0
>>
> 
> yes.

You can't get rid of it, you don't want to, and it's not incorrect.
That's an interface route.

>> If you mean some other line, then please specify, as I can see nothing
>> wrong with the output you've provided.
>>
> 
> Is it correct that my gateway of 192.168.0.4 is the same as my nic of my server?

Yes, of course.  It's an interface route.  You'd see the same sort of
thing on many other systems with BSD-style stacks.

-- 
James Carlson         42.703N 71.076W         <carlsonj at workingcode.com>