't in the main source tree yet, so
cvsup overwrites the patched net/route.c sometimes.
Does the bugfix break something? If not, why isn't it in 3.4-STABLE yet?
It is necessary for the above configuration (or isn't it? I couldn't find
another way to treat this topology).
R
27;m not
altogether certain that there isn't a way to circumvent the problem
by initialising the network differently, but I tried ...
Regards,
Marinos
--
***==> Marinos J. Yannikos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
***==> http://pobox.com/~mjy
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
w
#x27;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
U 0 00 eth0
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 00 lo
0.0.0.0 195.58.161.97 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 eth0
Regards,
Marinos
--
***==> Marinos J. Yannikos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
***==> http://pobox.com/~mjy
T
easy to get many IPs these days.
> This is definately a routing bug, but it's in Win and Linux if they alloow
> this with no error.
Windows apparently allows the configuration even without the static route to
the gateway's network, which is very odd.
-mjy
--
***==> Marinos
5 matches
Mail list logo
