Thinkpad wireless masquerade

I have a thinkpad 760ELD with SuSE 9.0 loaded and running
fine. I have two PCMCIA cards Orinoco Gold wireless and
ethernet II IBM. The Orinoco is configured outgoing interface
and the ethernet to an attached hub so I can hook PCs to
masquerade through the connection.
On configuring the interfaces individually they work fine,
in other words I can use them.
If I configure them both at once with forwarding enabled
neither interface can ping from outside or in.
The routing table does not contain the default route, not
sure why yast did not handle it..
so
eth0 192.168.1.8 is inward (forwarded or local network with hub)
wlan0 192.168.1.9 is outward connected

My access point is plugged into a switch which is plugged
to a routing PC with IP 192.168.1.19. Other ports on this
switch find their way just fine.
In fact if I remove the eth0 config using yast I can surf
fine through this wlan0 connection.

The entire network has subnet 255.255.255.0.

So what should the default route be and is it my only issue?

Thanks for any info.
-Walt

--
Reply to innkeepATncDOTrrDOTcom to email questions.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> I have a thinkpad 760ELD with SuSE 9.0 loaded and running
> fine. I have two PCMCIA cards Orinoco Gold wireless and
> ethernet II IBM. The Orinoco is configured outgoing interface
> and the ethernet to an attached hub so I can hook PCs to
> masquerade through the connection.
> On configuring the interfaces individually they work fine,
> in other words I can use them.
> If I configure them both at once with forwarding enabled
> neither interface can ping from outside or in.
> The routing table does not contain the default route, not
> sure why yast did not handle it..
> so
> eth0 192.168.1.8 is inward (forwarded or local network with hub)
> wlan0 192.168.1.9 is outward connected
>
> My access point is plugged into a switch which is plugged
> to a routing PC with IP 192.168.1.19. Other ports on this
> switch find their way just fine.
> In fact if I remove the eth0 config using yast I can surf
> fine through this wlan0 connection.
>
> The entire network has subnet 255.255.255.0.
>
> So what should the default route be and is it my only issue?
>
> Thanks for any info.
> -Walt
>

A rule of thumb for the default route in leaf nodes of the Internet
is to point it to the next node toward the Net.

Your problem comes from an attempt to keep the separate local
nets (Ethernet and wireless) in the same subnet (192.168.1.0/24).
Make them separate and use the default route rule to each node.

HTH

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

Ok I thought for a moment I understood but I'm guessing not.

thinkpad interfaces are
eth0 192.168.0.8 netmask 255.255.0.0
wlan0 192.168.1.9 netmask 255.255.255.0 (so this connects to the .19 below)

remember the AP connects to a switch connects to a router PC with
eth1 dhcp (broadband connection)
eth0 192.168.1.19 netmask 255.255.255.0

A pc behind the thinkpad configures with
eth0 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.0.0

On the thinkpad I can ping forward to the outward connection
but not back to the 192.168.0.1 PC.

firewall and forwarding is enabled on the thinkpad. Being a router and connected
direct it shouldn't have a router specified right?
But the PC 192.168.0.1 specifies router 192.168.0.8

Thanks for any direction.
-Walt

Tauno Voipio <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> I have a thinkpad 760ELD with SuSE 9.0 loaded and running
>> fine. I have two PCMCIA cards Orinoco Gold wireless and
>> ethernet II IBM. The Orinoco is configured outgoing interface
>> and the ethernet to an attached hub so I can hook PCs to
>> masquerade through the connection.
>> On configuring the interfaces individually they work fine,
>> in other words I can use them.
>> If I configure them both at once with forwarding enabled
>> neither interface can ping from outside or in.
>> The routing table does not contain the default route, not
>> sure why yast did not handle it..
>> so
>> eth0 192.168.1.8 is inward (forwarded or local network with hub)
>> wlan0 192.168.1.9 is outward connected
>>
>> My access point is plugged into a switch which is plugged
>> to a routing PC with IP 192.168.1.19. Other ports on this
>> switch find their way just fine.
>> In fact if I remove the eth0 config using yast I can surf
>> fine through this wlan0 connection.
>>
>> The entire network has subnet 255.255.255.0.
>>
>> So what should the default route be and is it my only issue?
>>
>> Thanks for any info.
>> -Walt
>>

> A rule of thumb for the default route in leaf nodes of the Internet
> is to point it to the next node toward the Net.

> Your problem comes from an attempt to keep the separate local
> nets (Ethernet and wireless) in the same subnet (192.168.1.0/24).
> Make them separate and use the default route rule to each node.

> HTH

> Tauno Voipio
> tauno voipio (at) iki fi


--
Reply to innkeepATncDOTrrDOTcom to email questions.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Ok I thought for a moment I understood but I'm guessing not.
>
> thinkpad interfaces are
> eth0 192.168.0.8 netmask 255.255.0.0
> wlan0 192.168.1.9 netmask 255.255.255.0 (so this connects to the .19 below)
>
> remember the AP connects to a switch connects to a router PC with
> eth1 dhcp (broadband connection)
> eth0 192.168.1.19 netmask 255.255.255.0
>
> A pc behind the thinkpad configures with
> eth0 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.0.0
>
> On the thinkpad I can ping forward to the outward connection
> but not back to the 192.168.0.1 PC.
>
> firewall and forwarding is enabled on the thinkpad. Being a router and connected
> direct it shouldn't have a router specified right?
> But the PC 192.168.0.1 specifies router 192.168.0.8
>
> Thanks for any direction.
> -Walt

The 192.168.0.x network masks are suspect: 255.255.0.0 covers the
whole 192.168.x.y range, including the outgoing network.

The PC behind the Thinkpad should be 192.168.0.1 / 255.255.255.0
(note the mask), with default gateway 192.168.1.9

The Thinkpad wlan0 should be 192.168.1.9 / 255.255.255.0. (mask!)
The Thinkpad default gateway should be 192.168.1.19.

If the ping still does not get there, run tcpdump or Ethereal on
both hosts and post the results.

HTH

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

PS. Written on a Thinkpad A21p and Lucent Orinoco to WLAN and
a Linux router to ADSL.

TV

Ahh yes I got it....
Now I am discovering a thinkpad might not be a good candidate for router?
I see two problems.
Traffic is very slow to load a page. I'll have to analyze it hop by hop with
ethereal as you suggested.
The other thing is thinkpads suspend Kind of like the toll taker at the bridge
sleeping in the way.
Thanks for your help though I appreciate it.
-Walt

Tauno Voipio <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> Ok I thought for a moment I understood but I'm guessing not.
>>
>> thinkpad interfaces are
>> eth0 192.168.0.8 netmask 255.255.0.0
>> wlan0 192.168.1.9 netmask 255.255.255.0 (so this connects to the .19 below)
>>
>> remember the AP connects to a switch connects to a router PC with
>> eth1 dhcp (broadband connection)
>> eth0 192.168.1.19 netmask 255.255.255.0
>>
>> A pc behind the thinkpad configures with
>> eth0 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.0.0
>>
>> On the thinkpad I can ping forward to the outward connection
>> but not back to the 192.168.0.1 PC.
>>
>> firewall and forwarding is enabled on the thinkpad. Being a router and connected
>> direct it shouldn't have a router specified right?
>> But the PC 192.168.0.1 specifies router 192.168.0.8
>>
>> Thanks for any direction.
>> -Walt

> The 192.168.0.x network masks are suspect: 255.255.0.0 covers the
> whole 192.168.x.y range, including the outgoing network.

> The PC behind the Thinkpad should be 192.168.0.1 / 255.255.255.0
> (note the mask), with default gateway 192.168.1.9

> The Thinkpad wlan0 should be 192.168.1.9 / 255.255.255.0. (mask!)
> The Thinkpad default gateway should be 192.168.1.19.

> If the ping still does not get there, run tcpdump or Ethereal on
> both hosts and post the results.

> HTH

> Tauno Voipio
> tauno voipio (at) iki fi

> PS. Written on a Thinkpad A21p and Lucent Orinoco to WLAN and
> a Linux router to ADSL.

> TV


--
Reply to innkeepATncDOTrrDOTcom to email questions.

(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Ahh yes I got it....
> Now I am discovering a thinkpad might not be a good candidate for router?
> I see two problems.
> Traffic is very slow to load a page. I'll have to analyze it hop by hop with
> ethereal as you suggested.
> The other thing is thinkpads suspend Kind of like the toll taker at the bridge
> sleeping in the way.
> Thanks for your help though I appreciate it.
> -Walt
>

The ADSL line is slower than my first Thinkpad (300, i386SX).
The processor speed should not be an issue.

Check that there are no DNS timeouts (or maybe IDENT from the server).

The Thinkpad stops (at least mine) to suspend if you feed it with
line power.

I was first thinking to set up a retired Thinkpad to perform
as the router, but changed my mind and built a small system
from a VIA EPIA Mini-ITX board (55 W, about the same as a laptop).

My router runs a masquerading firewall (iptables), a NTP server,
and a DNS cache (dnsmasq).

Tauno Voipio
tauno voipio (at) iki fi

Basically what happens are specific connections like the graphic
on the google page do not complete. In some cases most of the page
loads except a few graphics.
In ethereal it eventually becomes 'unreachable' after a long time.
I'm using this on the thinkpad while loading a page on the PC behind it.
So I think most of this works its just some distance problem.
Are there issues with going through 2 routers/firewalls?

Thanks.
-Walt

I could send the output of ethereal if you think you might recognize the
problem? (size 27443)


Tauno Voipio <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>> Ahh yes I got it....
>> Now I am discovering a thinkpad might not be a good candidate for router?
>> I see two problems.
>> Traffic is very slow to load a page. I'll have to analyze it hop by hop with
>> ethereal as you suggested.
>> The other thing is thinkpads suspend Kind of like the toll taker at the bridge
>> sleeping in the way.
>> Thanks for your help though I appreciate it.
>> -Walt
>>

> The ADSL line is slower than my first Thinkpad (300, i386SX).
> The processor speed should not be an issue.

> Check that there are no DNS timeouts (or maybe IDENT from the server).

> The Thinkpad stops (at least mine) to suspend if you feed it with
> line power.

> I was first thinking to set up a retired Thinkpad to perform
> as the router, but changed my mind and built a small system
> from a VIA EPIA Mini-ITX board (55 W, about the same as a laptop).

> My router runs a masquerading firewall (iptables), a NTP server,
> and a DNS cache (dnsmasq).

> Tauno Voipio
> tauno voipio (at) iki fi


--
Reply to innkeepATncDOTrrDOTcom to email questions.

> The ADSL line is slower than my first Thinkpad (300, i386SX).
> The processor speed should not be an issue.

yes of course you are right but I was refering to subtle
hardware issues with linux and it's sometimes incomplete
support of many models.


> Check that there are no DNS timeouts (or maybe IDENT from the server).

> The Thinkpad stops (at least mine) to suspend if you feed it with
> line power.

Again I did not think. I need to leave it docked to get around this.

Thanks.
-Walt

Tauno Voipio <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Check that there are no DNS timeouts (or maybe IDENT from the server).

there are .... resolution is intermittant.
Explorer delivers the message 'unknown zone'
I'm starting to think its a problem with using the two network address
groups 192.168.1.x and 192.168.0.x and the same netmask 255.255.255.0

-Walt

new description
both TP and PCrouter are masquerading boxes using iptables

PC <-> TPint1 TPint2 <-> PCrouter1 PCrouter2 (DHCP)

PC 192.168.0.1 255.255.254.0
TPint1 192.168.0.8 255.255.254.0
TPint2 192.168.1.9 255.255.255.0
PCrouter1 192.168.1.19 255.255.255.0
PCrouter2 DHCP (external int)

ping from TP to PC works
ping from TP to PCrouter works
ping from PC to TP works
ping from PC to PCrouter does not or is sporadic

TP (thinkpad masquerade box) route table
192.168.0.1 (network entry)
192.168.1.1 (network entry)
default through 192.168.1.19

This bolsters my statement before that parts of web pages seem to load
I'm really bleeding here any ideas?
Thanks.
-Walt


(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> Tauno Voipio <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Check that there are no DNS timeouts (or maybe IDENT from the server).

> there are .... resolution is intermittant.
> Explorer delivers the message 'unknown zone'
> I'm starting to think its a problem with using the two network address
> groups 192.168.1.x and 192.168.0.x and the same netmask 255.255.255.0

> -Walt

--
Reply to innkeepATncDOTrrDOTcom to email questions.