I agree this setup looks weird or plain wrong to me Yes, this does work if I add the route manually And, no I'm not the cisco guy :) I'm the Linux guy. I will try talking to the networking people to see if we can talk on a separate network
Thanks a lot & Regards On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Tom Sightler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, 2008-03-01 at 20:07 +0200, Ahmed Kamal wrote: > > Thanks that almost worked, but it seems whenever eth1 gets its IP, an > > automatic route is added to 172.30.0.0/16 through eth1. When > > route-eth1 tries to add the needed route, I get the error "RTNETLINK > > answers: File Exists" > > > Um, yes, that's the way IP networking works. You've created an > interface with an IP of 172.30.0.3 with a netmask of 255.255.0.0, that > means you've told the system that 172.30.0.3 can reach all 65534 host > WITHOUT a router. Then you trying to override that by adding a route by > claiming that the other 65533 (every host except for this one) is > reachable only via a router. That's not really a valid configuration in > my book so it's doesn't really surprise me. > > Are you able to make this work by manually adding the route? Are you > able to post the "router" config. What networks is this "router" > actually routing. > > Later, > Tom > > > > _______________________________________________ > rhelv5-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list >
_______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
