What you're doing here is generally referred to as multi-netting. When
you're wandering through the references, use that as a starting point.
Multi-netting is certainly valid, when implemented correctly. I would
definately echo the sentiment elsewhere in this thread that you and your
ISP
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 09:17:13PM -0400, Colin wrote:
[...] I honestly see no reason that what
you're doing should work at all. Effectively you're telling your system that
the way to connect to networks that it's address is not part of is to send a
message to a host that is on a network
On Sat, 17 Jun 2000, Marinos J . Yannikos wrote:
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 09:17:13PM -0400, Colin wrote:
It's not exactly a "catch-22", since the (perfectly valid) static route to
the default gateway's network takes precedence over the above rule (the
default route).
So how are they
3.4-STABLE still seems to contain the annoying routing bug that prevents
the correct initialization of a default route with the gateway being in
a non-local network, i.e. like this:
ifconfig_vr0="195.58.183.77 netmask 255.255.255.248"
static_routes="0 1"
route_0="-net 195.58.161.96 -netmask
On Thu 2000-06-15 (13:50), Marinos J . Yannikos wrote:
I have been using William Carrel's bugfix for several months without
problems, but for some reason it isn't in the main source tree yet, so
cvsup overwrites the patched net/route.c sometimes.
Does the bugfix break something? If not, why
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:47:17PM +0200, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote:
The PR number might be useful, if you have it. If it's not in the PR
database, then you should submit it. That way we get to lay blame
*grin*.
Sorry... It was in the subject: PR 16318. I must add that I'm not
altogether
On Thu 2000-06-15 (14:03), Marinos J . Yannikos wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 01:47:17PM +0200, Neil Blakey-Milner wrote:
The PR number might be useful, if you have it. If it's not in the PR
database, then you should submit it. That way we get to lay blame
*grin*.
Sorry... It was in
3.4-STABLE still seems to contain the annoying routing bug that prevents
the correct initialization of a default route with the gateway being in
a non-local network, i.e. like this:
ifconfig_vr0="195.58.183.77 netmask 255.255.255.248"
static_routes="0 1"
route_0="-net 195.58.161.96
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 -
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
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Mike Smith wrote:
[snip]
I don't see why that should be necessary - my ISP doesn't either, since
he'd have to part with another IP address.
No he wouldn't, he's already connected to you through your
vr0 interface network range: 195.58.183.77 netmask
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Marinos J . Yannikos wrote:
route_0="-net 195.58.161.96 -netmask 255.255.255.240 -iface vr0"
What IP is that network reachable through?
WHat does your routing table look like before this route gets
added? after it gets added?
Nick Rogness
-
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 11:44:14AM -0600, Nick Rogness wrote:
route_0="-net 195.58.161.96 -netmask 255.255.255.240 -iface vr0"
What IP is that network reachable through?
vr0 has only one IP - 195.58.183.77
WHat does your routing table look like before this route gets
My ISP claims that the configuration above works trivially under
Linux and Windows NT,
I would like to see that.
Mr. Smith is correct. Why not set your gateway as the next-hop
address to your ISP upstream within the 195.58.183.77 network?
Another option would
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Marinos J . Yannikos wrote:
On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 11:44:14AM -0600, Nick Rogness wrote:
route_0="-net 195.58.161.96 -netmask 255.255.255.240 -iface vr0"
What IP is that network reachable through?
vr0 has only one IP - 195.58.183.77
That's not likely
15 matches
Mail list logo
