Tugger the SLUGger!SLUG Mailing List Archives

RE: [SLUG] Routing question


On Wed, 14 Feb 2001, Des Wass wrote:

> The telnet server and Intranet is located in Sydney. Melbourne users need to
> access telnet/intranet via private (internal) frame link. All other traffic
> (surfing, mail, etc) via each cities respective internet link.
> 
> Melbourne = 192.168.21.0/24
> Sydney = 192.168.20.0/24
> 
> Let's say I'm in Melbourne. If I want to send mail to Sydney, I need to send
> traffic via Internet. If I want to ftp the intranet site, I need to go via
> internet/VPN. Only intranet and telnet traffic should go via frame.
> 
> e.g.
> Source (192.168.21.100) to Intranet (192.168.20.5 port 80) via frame (gw
> 192.168.22.2)
> Source (192.168.21.100) to telnet (192.168.20.5 port 23) via frame (gw
> 192.168.22.2)
> Source (192.168.21.100) to Internal FTP (192.168.20.5 port 21) via
> Internet/VPN (gw 192.168.22.1)
> Source (192.168.21.100) to anything else (192.168.20.5 ! port 80 23) via
> internet/VPN (gw 192.168.22.1)
> 
> I have FreeSWAN running between Syd/Mel. Frame works also. With static
> routes, I can only send ALL traffic to the Sydney Server from Melbourne via
> frame/internet - not split both based on type of traffic.

Rubbish!

You can selectively route anything - all you would have to do is point a
default route out via the internet link in Melbourne, and then add a
selective route pointing 192.168.20.0 via the frame relay link.

What are you using for doing the routing? The Linux boxes? Send me a dump
of the output of netstat -r and route and I'll modify your routing table
according and send it right back.

DaZZa