Another routing question

I have a terminal server with two gateways. 192.168.10.250 and 192.168.11.1.
I have two nics in the server and 192.168.10.5 and 192.168.11.2.

What I want to do is have all 3389 traffic coming in on 10.250 go to 10.5
and all 11.1 to go to 11.2, I have set this up using port forwarding on the
two routers and that all works well. The only problem is that I am having
problems getting the traffic to go back out to the same gateway.

I tried using route add 192.168.10.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.10.250 and
route add 192.168.11.0 mask 255.255.255.248 192.168.11.1 but it occasionally
disconnects one connection or the other completely. Do I also need to
specify the interface when I do this?

Both nics do not have gateways set. Does any one else have the same
configuration or is there a better way to do this (or have I missed
somthing)?



Cheers

Murray

That doesn't really make a lot of sense. You do not need any routes to
get traffic to use the gateway on its own subnet. That is automatic. It is
delivered directly (on the wire) using MAC addresses. No real routing is
involved. Any traffic for 192.168.10.x would automatically go out through
192.168.10.5 .

You then talk about routing and port forwarding. This implies that the
connections are being made from some remote location. If that is so, the
incoming traffic to the terminal server will not have 192.168.10 or
192.168.11 IP addresses. So your added routes would not apply anyway. What
is beyond the routers?


Murray wrote:
> I have a terminal server with two gateways. 192.168.10.250 and
> 192.168.11.1. I have two nics in the server and 192.168.10.5 and
> 192.168.11.2.
> What I want to do is have all 3389 traffic coming in on 10.250 go to
> 10.5 and all 11.1 to go to 11.2, I have set this up using port
> forwarding on the two routers and that all works well. The only
> problem is that I am having problems getting the traffic to go back
> out to the same gateway.
> I tried using route add 192.168.10.0 mask 255.255.255.0
> 192.168.10.250 and route add 192.168.11.0 mask 255.255.255.248
> 192.168.11.1 but it occasionally disconnects one connection or the
> other completely. Do I also need to specify the interface when I do
> this?
> Both nics do not have gateways set. Does any one else have the same
> configuration or is there a better way to do this (or have I missed
> somthing)?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Murray

Hi Bill,
Im not able to specify different gateways for both NIC's as you arent
allowed to specify more then one gateway per computer, therefore by using
routes it eliminates me having to set default gateways in the first place
(or so I think)

The connections are being made from the internet using a public IP address,
and they are converted into internal addresses via the modem/router and
fowarded from there to the one TS.


"Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> That doesn't really make a lot of sense. You do not need any routes to
> get traffic to use the gateway on its own subnet. That is automatic. It is
> delivered directly (on the wire) using MAC addresses. No real routing is
> involved. Any traffic for 192.168.10.x would automatically go out through
> 192.168.10.5 .
>
> You then talk about routing and port forwarding. This implies that the
> connections are being made from some remote location. If that is so, the
> incoming traffic to the terminal server will not have 192.168.10 or
> 192.168.11 IP addresses. So your added routes would not apply anyway. What
> is beyond the routers?
>

As you say, you cannot use more than one default gateway. But static
routes won't help you either in this case. You would need to know what the
IP address of the remote client was to route it out through a particular
gateway .The addresses are not converted; the traffic is routed and
forwarded. The address in the header of the packet going back to the remote
client is its original IP address, not a 192.168 address.

Murray wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> Im not able to specify different gateways for both NIC's as you arent
> allowed to specify more then one gateway per computer, therefore by
> using routes it eliminates me having to set default gateways in the
> first place (or so I think)
>
> The connections are being made from the internet using a public IP
> address, and they are converted into internal addresses via the
> modem/router and fowarded from there to the one TS.
>
>
> "Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> That doesn't really make a lot of sense. You do not need any
>> routes to get traffic to use the gateway on its own subnet. That is
>> automatic. It is delivered directly (on the wire) using MAC
>> addresses. No real routing is involved. Any traffic for 192.168.10.x
>> would automatically go out through 192.168.10.5 .
>>
>> You then talk about routing and port forwarding. This implies
>> that the connections are being made from some remote location. If
>> that is so, the incoming traffic to the terminal server will not
>> have 192.168.10 or 192.168.11 IP addresses. So your added routes
>> would not apply anyway. What is beyond the routers?

Ok, so with my current setup what do I need to do for this to work?


"Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
news:usuKzf%(E-Mail Removed)...
> As you say, you cannot use more than one default gateway. But static
> routes won't help you either in this case. You would need to know what the
> IP address of the remote client was to route it out through a particular
> gateway .The addresses are not converted; the traffic is routed and
> forwarded. The address in the header of the packet going back to the
> remote client is its original IP address, not a 192.168 address.
>
> Murray wrote:
>> Hi Bill,
>> Im not able to specify different gateways for both NIC's as you arent
>> allowed to specify more then one gateway per computer, therefore by
>> using routes it eliminates me having to set default gateways in the
>> first place (or so I think)
>>
>> The connections are being made from the internet using a public IP
>> address, and they are converted into internal addresses via the
>> modem/router and fowarded from there to the one TS.
>>
>>
>> "Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> That doesn't really make a lot of sense. You do not need any
>>> routes to get traffic to use the gateway on its own subnet. That is
>>> automatic. It is delivered directly (on the wire) using MAC
>>> addresses. No real routing is involved. Any traffic for 192.168.10.x
>>> would automatically go out through 192.168.10.5 .
>>>
>>> You then talk about routing and port forwarding. This implies
>>> that the connections are being made from some remote location. If
>>> that is so, the incoming traffic to the terminal server will not
>>> have 192.168.10 or 192.168.11 IP addresses. So your added routes
>>> would not apply anyway. What is beyond the routers?
>
>

Sorry to say that, in my opinion, it won't!

Murray wrote:
> Ok, so with my current setup what do I need to do for this to work?
>
>
> "Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
> news:usuKzf%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> As you say, you cannot use more than one default gateway. But
>> static routes won't help you either in this case. You would need to
>> know what the IP address of the remote client was to route it out
>> through a particular gateway .The addresses are not converted; the
>> traffic is routed and forwarded. The address in the header of the
>> packet going back to the remote client is its original IP address,
>> not a 192.168 address. Murray wrote:
>>> Hi Bill,
>>> Im not able to specify different gateways for both NIC's as you
>>> arent allowed to specify more then one gateway per computer,
>>> therefore by using routes it eliminates me having to set default
>>> gateways in the first place (or so I think)
>>>
>>> The connections are being made from the internet using a public IP
>>> address, and they are converted into internal addresses via the
>>> modem/router and fowarded from there to the one TS.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
>>> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> That doesn't really make a lot of sense. You do not need any
>>>> routes to get traffic to use the gateway on its own subnet. That is
>>>> automatic. It is delivered directly (on the wire) using MAC
>>>> addresses. No real routing is involved. Any traffic for
>>>> 192.168.10.x would automatically go out through 192.168.10.5 .
>>>>
>>>> You then talk about routing and port forwarding. This implies
>>>> that the connections are being made from some remote location. If
>>>> that is so, the incoming traffic to the terminal server will not
>>>> have 192.168.10 or 192.168.11 IP addresses. So your added routes
>>>> would not apply anyway. What is beyond the routers?