Score:-1

Internet reachable from the first subnet, not from the second, on same NIC

nz flag

Hi (I hope this a the right place)

I'm working on ubuntu 18.04 with ifupdown (/etc/network/interfaces etc.), not netplan. I'm trying for several days on this difficulty.

one PC (A) with 2 cards : enp4s0 linked to my FAI (Internet 192.168.100.254) enp3s0 to 2 subnets (intranet) 192.168.1.0/24 and 192.168.3.0/24

on this PC (A) the command "ip a" gives :

1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000
    link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
    inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
2: enp3s0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel state UP group default qlen 1000
    link/ether 50:3e:aa:16:2c:76 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    inet 192.168.1.8/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global enp3s0
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
    inet 192.168.3.8/24 brd 192.168.3.255 scope global enp3s0:0
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
3: enp4s0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel state UP group default qlen 1000
    link/ether ac:16:2d:05:da:bd brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    inet 192.168.100.1/24 brd 192.168.100.255 scope global enp4s0
       valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

which correspond to the file "/etc/network/interfaces" :

auto enp4s0
  iface enp4s0 inet static
  address 192.168.100.1
  netmask 255.255.255.0
  dns-nameservers 194.2.0.20 8.8.8.8
  up route add default gw 192.168.100.254
  down route del default gw 192.168.100.254
auto enp3s0
  iface enp3s0 inet static
  address 192.168.1.8
  netmask 255.255.255.0
  dns-nameservers 194.2.0.20 8.8.8.8
  gateway 192.168.100.1
  up route add default gw 192.168.100.254
  down route del default gw 192.168.100.254
auto enp3s0:0
  iface enp3s0:0 inet static
  address 192.168.3.8
  netmask 255.255.255.0
  dns-nameservers 194.2.0.20 8.8.8.8
  gateway 192.168.100.1
  up route add default gw 192.168.100.254
  down route del default gw 192.168.100.254

This seems correct to me.

The command "route -n" gives :

Table de routage IP du noyau
Destination     Passerelle      Genmask         Indic Metric Ref    Use Iface
0.0.0.0         192.168.100.254 0.0.0.0         UG    0      0        0 enp4s0
192.168.1.0     0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U     0      0        0 enp3s0
192.168.3.0     0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U     0      0        0 enp3s0
192.168.100.0   0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U     0      0        0 enp4s0

This seems correct to me.

The commande '"ipconfig" on 192.168.3.39 gives :

   Adresse IPv4. . . . . . . . . . . . . .: 192.168.3.39
   Masque de sous-réseau. . . . . . . . . : 255.255.255.0
   Passerelle par défaut. . . . . . . . . : 192.168.3.8

This seems correct to me.

Situation : Everything should be good, but it doesn't work (I think I make a mistake somewhere) The two subnets seems to be identical, ecept the notation enp3s0:0 ; the first works fine, not the other one.

From a PC 192.168.1.94 I can ping outside (8.8.8.8), 192.168.1.90, 192.168.3.39

From a PC 192.168.1.39 I can ping 192.168.1.94, 192.168.3.94 but not outside (8.8.8.8)

I did try to modify everything on PC (A) and on 192.168.3.39 (different gateways) ; no good results.

Any suggestions ? (Thank's in advance).

Score:0
tf flag

Try enabling proxy-arp on that virtual interface. I believe the syntax is something like

sysctl net.ipv4.conf.eth0/1.proxy_arp

Proxy ARP may not be enabled on that virtual interface so your box will not respond to ARP requests on that interface, thus no traffice.

romaillard avatar
nz flag
Thanks' nepdev2 I tried, with no success. I was a good idea I did not know, maybe some other parameters about ipforwarding ? I'lltry wit another PC as a router with two cards specialy to avoid the notation "0:0" but no success again...
I sit in a Tesla and translated this thread with Ai:

mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.