[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ltsp-discuss
Subject:    Re: [Ltsp-discuss] two subnet on one phiscal ethernet card?
From:       Gavin McCullagh <gmccullagh () gmail ! com>
Date:       2009-03-15 22:53:02
Message-ID: 20090315225302.GB13597 () gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi,

On Sat, 14 Mar 2009, François Patte wrote:

> ltsp network (172.31.100.0) is plugged on eth1 device on which bridge
> ltsp0 is enabled.
> 
> Is it possible to have a second network (192.168.1.0) for "fat client)
> on the same device eth1.
> 
> Up to now I succeeded in brigging up the dhcp server to answer on both
> networks: TC get addresses 172.31.100.xxx and fat clients get adresses
> 19.168.1.xxx *but* TC can use the network and fat C. can only get their
> addreses but are unable to use the network (network unreachable is the
> answer if I ping from a client or from the server).

Are you entering every mac address in the dhcpd config to define which
network they get onto?  I guess you'd have to or the DHCP server wouldn't
know which config to give a client?

Is it possible that the thin clients are in fact not able to access the
network either, but as a logged-in user on a TC, you're really doing ping
tests from the thin client server, not the thin client itself?

> Are there some iptables rules to add to be able to route the fat clients
> network?

If you turn on ip_forward, both sets of packets will get routed out by
default.  If you want the LTSP server to do NAT¹, you'll need to explicitly
set that up for whichever subnet.  Edubuntu-specific details are here, but
they shouldn't be too far off the mark on Fedora (the network interface
setup is in /etc/sysconfig instead IIRC):

	https://wiki.edubuntu.org/ThinClientHowtoNAT

You could certainly add an iptables rule to block traffic coming from the
thin client subnet, though the chances are the thin clients would only ever
make requests from the thin client server anyway.

> Or such a construction is impossible and I have buy another ethernet
> card for the TC network...

It sounds workable, but I don't see the benefit of using separate subnets.
Could you not just use the one and avoid the hassle?  You could use
different parts of the ip space for the two sets and still apply different
firewall policies.

Gavin

¹ You could use an upstream router either but you need to be careful to add
static routes back to your thin clients



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_____________________________________________________________________
Ltsp-discuss mailing list.   To un-subscribe, or change prefs, goto:
      https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltsp-discuss
For additional LTSP help,   try #ltsp channel on irc.freenode.net

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]