On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 07:33:36AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote:
> [mjy]
> > ifconfig_vr0="195.58.183.77 netmask 255.255.255.248"
> > static_routes="0 1"
> > route_0="-net 195.58.161.96 -netmask 255.255.255.240 -iface vr0"
> > route_1="default 195.58.161.97"
>
> The above network configuration is incorrect - you need a gateway that is
> directly reachable.
The gateway is physically connected to the same network, the physical network
contains 2 (or more) distinct subnets.
> If you want to use the above default route, you need
> to give your machine an address on the same network as your gateway, most
> trivially by aliasing it onto the vr0 interface.
I don't see why that should be necessary - my ISP doesn't either, since he'd
have to part with another IP address. My ISP claims and I've verified that
the configuration above works trivially under Linux and Windows NT, and
as far as I can tell, the submitted patch does nothing more than to allow
the specified interface to be taken into consideration when "connectedness"
is determined (i.e. it allows the gateway to be in a different subnet as long
as it is physically connected).
Regards,
Marinos
--
***==> Marinos J. Yannikos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
***==> http://pobox.com/~mjy
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
