LAN Routing Query

I am trying to route between two networks using Redhat 9

My server has two NICs, one on either network
132.147.160.1
192.168.28.53
Routed is running.

My main network is 192.x
I have a client machine connected to the 132.x NIC using a crossover
cable (I've tried via a hub with no difference to my results just to be
sure). The client is on 132.147.160.2 and default gateway 132.147.160.1

The linux box can ping kit on either network as would be expected.
The client PC can ping both NICs on the Linux box.

Problem? The client machine cannot contact anything on the 192.x network
other than the Linux box NIC.

Clearly I have a routing issue on either my linux router or the client
config but I have no idea how to progress.

Any pointers would be much appreciated.

ChrisP wrote:
> I am trying to route between two networks using Redhat 9
>
> My server has two NICs, one on either network
> 132.147.160.1
> 192.168.28.53
> Routed is running.
>
> My main network is 192.x
> I have a client machine connected to the 132.x NIC using a crossover
> cable (I've tried via a hub with no difference to my results just to be
> sure). The client is on 132.147.160.2 and default gateway 132.147.160.1
>
> The linux box can ping kit on either network as would be expected.
> The client PC can ping both NICs on the Linux box.
>
> Problem? The client machine cannot contact anything on the 192.x network
> other than the Linux box NIC.
>
> Clearly I have a routing issue on either my linux router or the client
> config but I have no idea how to progress.
>
> Any pointers would be much appreciated.

did you allow the linux box to route ?
try echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
can you show us the routing table of the linux box ?

Have just enabled ip_forward . Routing table now looks like

132.147.160.0 132.147.160.1 255.255.255.0 UG eth0
132.147.160.0 * 255.255.255.0 U eth0
192.168.28.0 192.168.28.53 255.255.255.0 UG eth1
192.168.28.0 * 255.255.255.0 U eth1
169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U eth1
127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U lo
default 192.168.28.13 0.0.0.0 UG eth1

my default gateway is my internet gateway (192.168.28.13)
and I have no clue as to why 169.254.0.0 is turning up on eth1 when the
config of the card looks fine (ifconfig shows no trace of 169.254.0.0 on
the output).

ip_forward has made no difference to anything that I can see (except
names are now appearing as addresses in the routing table).

ysengrin wrote:

> ChrisP wrote:
> > I am trying to route between two networks using Redhat 9
> >
> > My server has two NICs, one on either network
> > 132.147.160.1
> > 192.168.28.53
> > Routed is running.
> >
> > My main network is 192.x
> > I have a client machine connected to the 132.x NIC using a crossover
> > cable (I've tried via a hub with no difference to my results just to be
> > sure). The client is on 132.147.160.2 and default gateway 132.147.160.1
> >
> > The linux box can ping kit on either network as would be expected.
> > The client PC can ping both NICs on the Linux box.
> >
> > Problem? The client machine cannot contact anything on the 192.x network
> > other than the Linux box NIC.
> >
> > Clearly I have a routing issue on either my linux router or the client
> > config but I have no idea how to progress.
> >
> > Any pointers would be much appreciated.
>
> did you allow the linux box to route ?
> try echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
> can you show us the routing table of the linux box ?
>

try
route del 132.147.160.0 gw 132.147.160.1
route del 192.168.28.0 gw 192.168.28.53
both routing lines are not usefull

they are also a strange line wich i don't undestand
169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U eth1
you should insert a gateway or delete it

ChrisP wrote:
> Have just enabled ip_forward . Routing table now looks like
>
> 132.147.160.0 132.147.160.1 255.255.255.0 UG eth0
> 132.147.160.0 * 255.255.255.0 U eth0
> 192.168.28.0 192.168.28.53 255.255.255.0 UG eth1
> 192.168.28.0 * 255.255.255.0 U eth1
> 169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U eth1
> 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U lo
> default 192.168.28.13 0.0.0.0 UG eth1
>
> my default gateway is my internet gateway (192.168.28.13)
> and I have no clue as to why 169.254.0.0 is turning up on eth1 when the
> config of the card looks fine (ifconfig shows no trace of 169.254.0.0 on
> the output).
>
> ip_forward has made no difference to anything that I can see (except
> names are now appearing as addresses in the routing table).
>
> ysengrin wrote:
>
>
>>ChrisP wrote:
>>
>>>I am trying to route between two networks using Redhat 9
>>>
>>>My server has two NICs, one on either network
>>>132.147.160.1
>>>192.168.28.53
>>>Routed is running.
>>>
>>>My main network is 192.x
>>>I have a client machine connected to the 132.x NIC using a crossover
>>>cable (I've tried via a hub with no difference to my results just to be
>>>sure). The client is on 132.147.160.2 and default gateway 132.147.160.1
>>>
>>>The linux box can ping kit on either network as would be expected.
>>>The client PC can ping both NICs on the Linux box.
>>>
>>>Problem? The client machine cannot contact anything on the 192.x network
>>>other than the Linux box NIC.
>>>
>>>Clearly I have a routing issue on either my linux router or the client
>>>config but I have no idea how to progress.
>>>
>>>Any pointers would be much appreciated.
>>
>>did you allow the linux box to route ?
>>try echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
>>can you show us the routing table of the linux box ?
>>
>
>

Clearly it's one of those days! I'm trying to delete any of the
mentioned routes - yes I checked your syntax and also the info given on
the command and I always get the response
SIOCDELRT : No such process

Which is very discouraging because I can clearly see the routes are
there. I've turned off routed now to try to manually delete the routes
with no success.

Am going to reboot and eat lunch then recommence battle (I'm rebooting
with routed turned off to try to ensure nothing creeps into the routing
table I don't want).

Will let you know how it goes later on.
ysengrin wrote:

> try
> route del 132.147.160.0 gw 132.147.160.1
> route del 192.168.28.0 gw 192.168.28.53
> both routing lines are not usefull
>
> they are also a strange line wich i don't undestand
> 169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U eth1
> you should insert a gateway or delete it
>
> ChrisP wrote:
> > Have just enabled ip_forward . Routing table now looks like
> >
> > 132.147.160.0 132.147.160.1 255.255.255.0 UG eth0
> > 132.147.160.0 * 255.255.255.0 U eth0
> > 192.168.28.0 192.168.28.53 255.255.255.0 UG eth1
> > 192.168.28.0 * 255.255.255.0 U eth1
> > 169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U eth1
> > 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U lo
> > default 192.168.28.13 0.0.0.0 UG eth1
> >
> > my default gateway is my internet gateway (192.168.28.13)
> > and I have no clue as to why 169.254.0.0 is turning up on eth1 when the
> > config of the card looks fine (ifconfig shows no trace of 169.254.0.0 on
> > the output).
> >
> > ip_forward has made no difference to anything that I can see (except
> > names are now appearing as addresses in the routing table).
> >
> > ysengrin wrote:
> >
> >
> >>ChrisP wrote:
> >>
> >>>I am trying to route between two networks using Redhat 9
> >>>
> >>>My server has two NICs, one on either network
> >>>132.147.160.1
> >>>192.168.28.53
> >>>Routed is running.
> >>>
> >>>My main network is 192.x
> >>>I have a client machine connected to the 132.x NIC using a crossover
> >>>cable (I've tried via a hub with no difference to my results just to be
> >>>sure). The client is on 132.147.160.2 and default gateway 132.147.160.1
> >>>
> >>>The linux box can ping kit on either network as would be expected.
> >>>The client PC can ping both NICs on the Linux box.
> >>>
> >>>Problem? The client machine cannot contact anything on the 192.x network
> >>>other than the Linux box NIC.
> >>>
> >>>Clearly I have a routing issue on either my linux router or the client
> >>>config but I have no idea how to progress.
> >>>
> >>>Any pointers would be much appreciated.
> >>
> >>did you allow the linux box to route ?
> >>try echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
> >>can you show us the routing table of the linux box ?
> >>
> >
> >
>

Ok Lunch successfully completed (so I have finished something today).

Have rebooted and ended up with
132.147.160.0 * 255.255.255.0 u eth0
192.168.28.0 * 255.255.255.0 U eth1
169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U eth1
127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U lo
default 192.168.28.13 0.0.0.0 UG eht1

I still get SIOCDELRT for
route delete 169.254.0.0
and I can still find no trace of it in the config of my machine.
However, I do have less surplus routes now.

I've turned ip_forward on again but left routed off. Currently I still
have no communication from the client PC to the 192 network so I guess I
just need to figure out how to make the two cards on linux communicate
and check that the client has the correct config.

I'm under the impression for the static routes I would want to :
route add 192.168.28.0 gw 192.168.28.53 eth1
route add 132.147.160.0 gw 132.147.160.1 eth 0

or have I gone off on the wrong track again?
Thanks

ChrisP wrote:

> Clearly it's one of those days! I'm trying to delete any of the
> mentioned routes - yes I checked your syntax and also the info given on
> the command and I always get the response
> SIOCDELRT : No such process
>
> Which is very discouraging because I can clearly see the routes are
> there. I've turned off routed now to try to manually delete the routes
> with no success.
>
> Am going to reboot and eat lunch then recommence battle (I'm rebooting
> with routed turned off to try to ensure nothing creeps into the routing
> table I don't want).
>
> Will let you know how it goes later on.
> ysengrin wrote:
>
> > try
> > route del 132.147.160.0 gw 132.147.160.1
> > route del 192.168.28.0 gw 192.168.28.53
> > both routing lines are not usefull
> >
> > they are also a strange line wich i don't undestand
> > 169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U eth1
> > you should insert a gateway or delete it
> >
> > ChrisP wrote:
> > > Have just enabled ip_forward . Routing table now looks like
> > >
> > > 132.147.160.0 132.147.160.1 255.255.255.0 UG eth0
> > > 132.147.160.0 * 255.255.255.0 U eth0
> > > 192.168.28.0 192.168.28.53 255.255.255.0 UG eth1
> > > 192.168.28.0 * 255.255.255.0 U eth1
> > > 169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U eth1
> > > 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U lo
> > > default 192.168.28.13 0.0.0.0 UG eth1
> > >
> > > my default gateway is my internet gateway (192.168.28.13)
> > > and I have no clue as to why 169.254.0.0 is turning up on eth1 when the
> > > config of the card looks fine (ifconfig shows no trace of 169.254.0.0 on
> > > the output).
> > >
> > > ip_forward has made no difference to anything that I can see (except
> > > names are now appearing as addresses in the routing table).
> > >
> > > ysengrin wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>ChrisP wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>I am trying to route between two networks using Redhat 9
> > >>>
> > >>>My server has two NICs, one on either network
> > >>>132.147.160.1
> > >>>192.168.28.53
> > >>>Routed is running.
> > >>>
> > >>>My main network is 192.x
> > >>>I have a client machine connected to the 132.x NIC using a crossover
> > >>>cable (I've tried via a hub with no difference to my results just to be
> > >>>sure). The client is on 132.147.160.2 and default gateway 132.147.160.1
> > >>>
> > >>>The linux box can ping kit on either network as would be expected.
> > >>>The client PC can ping both NICs on the Linux box.
> > >>>
> > >>>Problem? The client machine cannot contact anything on the 192.x network
> > >>>other than the Linux box NIC.
> > >>>
> > >>>Clearly I have a routing issue on either my linux router or the client
> > >>>config but I have no idea how to progress.
> > >>>
> > >>>Any pointers would be much appreciated.
> > >>
> > >>did you allow the linux box to route ?
> > >>try echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
> > >>can you show us the routing table of the linux box ?
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> >
>

What your ifconfig give ?
also your /etc/network/interfaces

ChrisP wrote:
> Ok Lunch successfully completed (so I have finished something today).
>
> Have rebooted and ended up with
> 132.147.160.0 * 255.255.255.0 u eth0
> 192.168.28.0 * 255.255.255.0 U eth1
> 169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U eth1
> 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U lo
> default 192.168.28.13 0.0.0.0 UG eht1
>
> I still get SIOCDELRT for
> route delete 169.254.0.0
> and I can still find no trace of it in the config of my machine.
> However, I do have less surplus routes now.
>
> I've turned ip_forward on again but left routed off. Currently I still
> have no communication from the client PC to the 192 network so I guess I
> just need to figure out how to make the two cards on linux communicate
> and check that the client has the correct config.
>
> I'm under the impression for the static routes I would want to :
> route add 192.168.28.0 gw 192.168.28.53 eth1
> route add 132.147.160.0 gw 132.147.160.1 eth 0
>
> or have I gone off on the wrong track again?
> Thanks
>
> ChrisP wrote:
>
>
>>Clearly it's one of those days! I'm trying to delete any of the
>>mentioned routes - yes I checked your syntax and also the info given on
>>the command and I always get the response
>>SIOCDELRT : No such process
>>
>>Which is very discouraging because I can clearly see the routes are
>>there. I've turned off routed now to try to manually delete the routes
>>with no success.
>>
>>Am going to reboot and eat lunch then recommence battle (I'm rebooting
>>with routed turned off to try to ensure nothing creeps into the routing
>>table I don't want).
>>
>>Will let you know how it goes later on.
>>ysengrin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>try
>>>route del 132.147.160.0 gw 132.147.160.1
>>>route del 192.168.28.0 gw 192.168.28.53
>>>both routing lines are not usefull
>>>
>>>they are also a strange line wich i don't undestand
>>>169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U eth1
>>>you should insert a gateway or delete it
>>>
>>>ChrisP wrote:
>>>
>>>>Have just enabled ip_forward . Routing table now looks like
>>>>
>>>>132.147.160.0 132.147.160.1 255.255.255.0 UG eth0
>>>>132.147.160.0 * 255.255.255.0 U eth0
>>>>192.168.28.0 192.168.28.53 255.255.255.0 UG eth1
>>>>192.168.28.0 * 255.255.255.0 U eth1
>>>>169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U eth1
>>>>127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U lo
>>>>default 192.168.28.13 0.0.0.0 UG eth1
>>>>
>>>>my default gateway is my internet gateway (192.168.28.13)
>>>>and I have no clue as to why 169.254.0.0 is turning up on eth1 when the
>>>>config of the card looks fine (ifconfig shows no trace of 169.254.0.0 on
>>>>the output).
>>>>
>>>>ip_forward has made no difference to anything that I can see (except
>>>>names are now appearing as addresses in the routing table).
>>>>
>>>>ysengrin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>ChrisP wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>I am trying to route between two networks using Redhat 9
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My server has two NICs, one on either network
>>>>>>132.147.160.1
>>>>>>192.168.28.53
>>>>>>Routed is running.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>My main network is 192.x
>>>>>>I have a client machine connected to the 132.x NIC using a crossover
>>>>>>cable (I've tried via a hub with no difference to my results just to be
>>>>>>sure). The client is on 132.147.160.2 and default gateway 132.147.160.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The linux box can ping kit on either network as would be expected.
>>>>>>The client PC can ping both NICs on the Linux box.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Problem? The client machine cannot contact anything on the 192.x network
>>>>>>other than the Linux box NIC.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Clearly I have a routing issue on either my linux router or the client
>>>>>>config but I have no idea how to progress.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Any pointers would be much appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>>did you allow the linux box to route ?
>>>>>try echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
>>>>>can you show us the routing table of the linux box ?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>

ifconfig shows nothing unusual (I'm about to try to find a newsreader on
linux so I can copy it in here) and /etc/sysconfig/devices shows exactly
what I might expect.

If I ignore the 169 issue what should be my next step for trying to get
this routing off the ground?

ysengrin wrote:

> What your ifconfig give ?
> also your /etc/network/interfaces
>
> ChrisP wrote:
> > Ok Lunch successfully completed (so I have finished something today).
> >
> > Have rebooted and ended up with
> > 132.147.160.0 * 255.255.255.0 u eth0
> > 192.168.28.0 * 255.255.255.0 U eth1
> > 169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U eth1
> > 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U lo
> > default 192.168.28.13 0.0.0.0 UG eht1
> >
> > I still get SIOCDELRT for
> > route delete 169.254.0.0
> > and I can still find no trace of it in the config of my machine.
> > However, I do have less surplus routes now.
> >
> > I've turned ip_forward on again but left routed off. Currently I still
> > have no communication from the client PC to the 192 network so I guess I
> > just need to figure out how to make the two cards on linux communicate
> > and check that the client has the correct config.
> >
> > I'm under the impression for the static routes I would want to :
> > route add 192.168.28.0 gw 192.168.28.53 eth1
> > route add 132.147.160.0 gw 132.147.160.1 eth 0
> >
> > or have I gone off on the wrong track again?
> > Thanks
> >
> > ChrisP wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Clearly it's one of those days! I'm trying to delete any of the
> >>mentioned routes - yes I checked your syntax and also the info given on
> >>the command and I always get the response
> >>SIOCDELRT : No such process
> >>
> >>Which is very discouraging because I can clearly see the routes are
> >>there. I've turned off routed now to try to manually delete the routes
> >>with no success.
> >>
> >>Am going to reboot and eat lunch then recommence battle (I'm rebooting
> >>with routed turned off to try to ensure nothing creeps into the routing
> >>table I don't want).
> >>
> >>Will let you know how it goes later on.
> >>ysengrin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>try
> >>>route del 132.147.160.0 gw 132.147.160.1
> >>>route del 192.168.28.0 gw 192.168.28.53
> >>>both routing lines are not usefull
> >>>
> >>>they are also a strange line wich i don't undestand
> >>>169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U eth1
> >>>you should insert a gateway or delete it
> >>>
> >>>ChrisP wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Have just enabled ip_forward . Routing table now looks like
> >>>>
> >>>>132.147.160.0 132.147.160.1 255.255.255.0 UG eth0
> >>>>132.147.160.0 * 255.255.255.0 U eth0
> >>>>192.168.28.0 192.168.28.53 255.255.255.0 UG eth1
> >>>>192.168.28.0 * 255.255.255.0 U eth1
> >>>>169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U eth1
> >>>>127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U lo
> >>>>default 192.168.28.13 0.0.0.0 UG eth1
> >>>>
> >>>>my default gateway is my internet gateway (192.168.28.13)
> >>>>and I have no clue as to why 169.254.0.0 is turning up on eth1 when the
> >>>>config of the card looks fine (ifconfig shows no trace of 169.254.0.0 on
> >>>>the output).
> >>>>
> >>>>ip_forward has made no difference to anything that I can see (except
> >>>>names are now appearing as addresses in the routing table).
> >>>>
> >>>>ysengrin wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>ChrisP wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>I am trying to route between two networks using Redhat 9
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>My server has two NICs, one on either network
> >>>>>>132.147.160.1
> >>>>>>192.168.28.53
> >>>>>>Routed is running.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>My main network is 192.x
> >>>>>>I have a client machine connected to the 132.x NIC using a crossover
> >>>>>>cable (I've tried via a hub with no difference to my results just to be
> >>>>>>sure). The client is on 132.147.160.2 and default gateway 132.147.160.1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>The linux box can ping kit on either network as would be expected.
> >>>>>>The client PC can ping both NICs on the Linux box.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Problem? The client machine cannot contact anything on the 192.x network
> >>>>>>other than the Linux box NIC.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Clearly I have a routing issue on either my linux router or the client
> >>>>>>config but I have no idea how to progress.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>Any pointers would be much appreciated.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>did you allow the linux box to route ?
> >>>>>try echo 1 >/proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
> >>>>>can you show us the routing table of the linux box ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >
>

Right - I'm working using Pan now which should be a bit easier.

Copied below are the output from ifconfig and
/etc/sysconfig/networking/devices - I think they show nothing unusual.


ifconfig
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0D:88:19:FE:58
inet addr:132.147.160.1 Bcast:132.147.160.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:257 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:24 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
RX bytes:24460 (23.8 Kb) TX bytes:1552 (1.5 Kb)
Interrupt:9 Base address:0x3000

eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0D:88:19:FE:5B
inet addr:192.168.28.53 Bcast:192.168.28.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:25186 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:10522 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
RX bytes:18085906 (17.2 Mb) TX bytes:732181 (715.0 Kb)
Interrupt:11 Base address:0x5000

lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:59524 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:59524 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:4063675 (3.8 Mb) TX bytes:4063675 (3.8 Mb)

[root@router root]# cat /etc/sysconfig/networking/devices/*
DEVICE=eth0
ONBOOT=yes
BOOTPROTO=none
IPADDR=132.147.160.1
NETMASK=255.255.255.0
USERCTL=no
PEERDNS=no
TYPE=Ethernet
NETWORK=132.147.160.0
BROADCAST=132.147.160.255
DEVICE=eth1
ONBOOT=yes
BOOTPROTO=none
IPADDR=192.168.28.53
NETMASK=255.255.255.0
USERCTL=no
PEERDNS=no
TYPE=Ethernet
NETWORK=192.168.28.0
BROADCAST=192.168.28.255
GATEWAY=192.168.28.13
[root@router root]#

Well.. it's quite strange..
169.254.0.0 is the default range of ip adress of windows.. maybe it can
interfer on the router
So maybe you should give to the laptop a fixed adress such
132.147.160.2 with the appropiate netmask 255.255.255.0
restart the linux box network
/etc/init.d/networking restart (or network restart )
and see...
maybe it can be interresting to tcpdump the eth0 interface..

Balance wrote:
> Right - I'm working using Pan now which should be a bit easier.
>
> Copied below are the output from ifconfig and
> /etc/sysconfig/networking/devices - I think they show nothing unusual.
>
>
> ifconfig
> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0D:88:19:FE:58
> inet addr:132.147.160.1 Bcast:132.147.160.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> RX packets:257 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> TX packets:24 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
> RX bytes:24460 (23.8 Kb) TX bytes:1552 (1.5 Kb)
> Interrupt:9 Base address:0x3000
>
> eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0D:88:19:FE:5B
> inet addr:192.168.28.53 Bcast:192.168.28.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
> RX packets:25186 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> TX packets:10522 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
> RX bytes:18085906 (17.2 Mb) TX bytes:732181 (715.0 Kb)
> Interrupt:11 Base address:0x5000
>
> lo Link encap:Local Loopback
> inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
> UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
> RX packets:59524 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> TX packets:59524 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
> RX bytes:4063675 (3.8 Mb) TX bytes:4063675 (3.8 Mb)
>
> [root@router root]# cat /etc/sysconfig/networking/devices/*
> DEVICE=eth0
> ONBOOT=yes
> BOOTPROTO=none
> IPADDR=132.147.160.1
> NETMASK=255.255.255.0
> USERCTL=no
> PEERDNS=no
> TYPE=Ethernet
> NETWORK=132.147.160.0
> BROADCAST=132.147.160.255
> DEVICE=eth1
> ONBOOT=yes
> BOOTPROTO=none
> IPADDR=192.168.28.53
> NETMASK=255.255.255.0
> USERCTL=no
> PEERDNS=no
> TYPE=Ethernet
> NETWORK=192.168.28.0
> BROADCAST=192.168.28.255
> GATEWAY=192.168.28.13
> [root@router root]#
>