| Subject | : | Still down... :( |
| Author | : | WhiteShepherd fuzzydog@whiteshepherd.net |
| Date | : | 07 Feb, 2004 on 22:09 |
| Well out of pure desperation I set my dlink router to 66.93.20.117 and my OS/2 lan1 to 192.168.2.117 Then all route commands for 192 automaticly bound to lan1! I then set the dlink to port forward all port 80 traffix to 192.168.2.117 Well it worked... sorta... With proper routing both network cards worked like a champ. I could pass network traffic through the dlink router and rich the outside world just fine via lan1. ..... Problem is my Dlink router would absolutly not port forward ANY. NAT was working fine just port forwarding failed. However as test I put Xitami on a win95 machine and the router portforwards to it. What the heck? I went over to my friends and borrowed his Microsoft (yuck) hardware router and set it up to port forward port 80. Exact same thing. NAT through lan1 worked fine but port forwarding did not work at all. Next I tried to get my 66.93.20.117 seperated by a subnet. However I really don't understand subnets. I ran a ifconfig lan0 66.93.20.60 netmask 255.255.255.30 metric 1 mtu 1500 and With this netmask the route add statements for example: route add 192.168.2.0 66.93.20.1 -netmask 255.255.255.31 bonded right away to lan1! Hey i felt a little excited even though it may not mean anything! But no traffic would pass along ANY IPs. This is most likely becouse I am clueless of subnet masks. So yet again it looks like I am no closer to getting two modems going on my OS/2 machine. I really need the bandwidth badly! Help! |
| Subject | : | Re:Still down... :( |
| Author | : | WhiteShepherd fuzzydog@whiteshepherd.net |
| Date | : | 07 Feb, 2004 on 22:10 |
| Sorry I didn't mean to post this as a new topic. Some of you may still remember my old post? |
| Subject | : | Re:Still down... :( |
| Author | : | Kim |
| Date | : | 07 Feb, 2004 on 22:24 |
| Well, let's just put a ref. to the original thread if someone need to refresh the memory and stick with this thread. |
| Subject | : | Re:Still down... :( |
| Author | : | warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de |
| Date | : | 09 Feb, 2004 on 11:18 |
Hi, Cheers |
| Subject | : | Re:Still down... :( |
| Author | : | Dalf |
| Date | : | 15 Feb, 2004 on 23:42 |
| Please provide a little more info,such as the contents of your c:\mtpn\bin\setup.cmd file, and you may leave out all lines beginning with 'REM'. Are you in the need for a quick fix, or are you an experienced guy on TCP/IP network-configurations ? Because the examples you gave aren't really clear to me. If you'ld describe your list of systems and their preferred IP addresses, i'ld be happy to do the math of proper netmask and routing statements. Hi, Bart |
| Subject | : | Re:Still down... :( |
| Author | : | warpcafe warpcafe@yahoo.de |
| Date | : | 17 Feb, 2004 on 11:18 |
Bart, As far as I understand, the problem is network performance and traffic load balancing with 2 NICs / 2 DSL modems. First, he had two DSL lines coming into one modem which did the balancing, then he had to change to 2 sepate modems. He searches a way of make OS/2 use two NICs with 1 DSL modem each simultaneously. But all internet traffic goes either one or the other NIC/modem, not both NICs/modems at the same time. Greetings |
| Subject | : | Re:Still down... :( |
| Author | : | Dalf |
| Date | : | 17 Feb, 2004 on 11:57 |
| Sorry, you're right ! I overlooked the history issue over the problem... BTW: 'port forwarding' is often used in 'NAT' environments. Anyway, back to the original issue: beyond the LoadBalancing matter, i can imagine an fault tolerant configuration with 2 nic's, but without a 'etherchannel' option, it would not benefit the load on the LAN anyway, nor would it increase performance or reduce load on the server itself, from my point of view. I'll shut up for now, before i(t) will get embarrissing Hi, Bart |