Anyone setup multihomed networking on WinXP?

[AtW]

LOL, this PIX 515E is like £700+ on ebay, definately out of question! I'll go get old linux router for now, at least to get it working, and I was hoping I would not need to use it. Stupid internet routing - they should be default route via same interface on which request was received.

[snaw]

£700 would be a massive rip off for one of those.

But I see your point, not really anything out there that'll come in cheap that will support three discrete interfaces (Which is what you're after, as opposed to a bolted on hub).

[AtW]

NAT32.com cheap software appears to do the job, but I could not configure demo version of it - as we both know in networking the only thing that I know well is latency, the rest is dark forest for me. I now pulled my old Linux router box (used to be my PC: P3 600), the only reason I would consider small hardware router is due to space/power savings, but at 700 quid quoted on Ebay there is no chance I am buying it: Cisco == rip off.

If you come up with any other ideas, then please post here - I am sure problem will go after I get Linux box running again, but I would still want to avoid using it, asked question to NAT32 guy, maybe he will help (I said I will buy his software if he can guarantee it will work in my config).

[MrsGoof]

shirley you only need to NAT one of the interfaces

[NoddY]

Would the problem be solved if you could bind each instance of the application to only one adapter?

There is also a RIP-1 listener in Windows XP, to allow it to update it's routing table accordingly, that's if the SMC router can advertise the fact that it's the best return path for an inbound packet it's just processed.

[AtW]

There appears to be two kinds of NATs - both will hide your IP and remap it in real time, but some will also hide SOURCE IP.

Would the problem be solved if you could bind each instance of the application to only one adapter?

I thought that would have worked but it did not, I will try again however.

I tried RIP, it did not work and should not work - my software knows exactly which path is best and it tells clients to connect on one or the other line, that's how I do load balancing (which is not 50-50 split btw).

Pulled old Linux server and of course it had hardware issue - thing was beeping without loading, so reused another box, loaded fine but seems it now shows same problem as if I did not use it, looks like it does not actually hide SOURCE IP, which is precisely the problem, ffs, I dont understand why it all worked before - I used BT ADSL router on the other line though, maybe it was hiding IPs properly??!?! I am not happy chappy now

[NoddY]

Pulled old Linux server and of course it had hardware issue - thing was beeping without loading, so reused another box, loaded fine but seems it now shows same problem as if I did not use it, looks like it does not actually hide SOURCE IP, which is precisely the problem, ffs, I dont understand why it all worked before - I used BT ADSL router on the other line though, maybe it was hiding IPs properly??!?! I am not happy chappy now

At least on the Linux box you can try the application proxy:

http://quietsche-entchen.de/cgi-bin/...oxies/TcpProxy

e.g.:

22.33.44.55 is visitor IP
192.168.7.50 is Linux
192.168.7.100 is final destination host

**********

SRC 22.33.44.55:45678
DST 80.33.22.xx:80

[SMC BOX: Port forward on SMC to 192.168.7.50 Linux Box]

SRC 22.33.44.55:56789
DST 192.168.7.50:80

[LINUX BOX: TCPPROXY on Linux, forward to final host]

SRC 192.168.7.50:34567
DST 192.168.7.100:80

***********

192.168.7.100 will know to route 192.168.7.0/24 back through the 192.168.7.100 interface (add static route if it doesn't)

[AtW]

I tried it, and I think proxy is what I need, but it did not work - it was run successfully shown to be listening on port but I could not connect to it, and other proxy did not work either maybe it is some kind of protection on the linux box, no idea as I did not build it myself, fking annoying that Linux is only great if you know inside outs.

I am not reading into iptables that I use there for routing, http://www.netfilter.org/documentati...T-HOWTO-3.html - SNAT is exactly what I need, I think I will ignore proxies since they may not even scale to loads that I will put through them where as iptables should be very scalable.

AtW in "aggro" mode.

[AtW]

Wohoo, got the ****er working - the key was in Source NAT definition, just one line in iptables config

Thanks all for trying to help, your comments lead me onto the right track, cheers!

[MarillionFan]

Well so much for the KIA kia.