> operating system based static routes are one of those things (specially in
> windows machines) that gets overlooked... and also causes headaches when
> you're trying to diagnose network problems and one or two machines are
> behaving totally different than others!
> to each their own though...
simpler, yes... more reliable, no.
operating system based static routes are one of those things (specially in
windows machines) that gets overlooked... and also causes headaches when
you're trying to diagnose network problems and one or two machines are
behaving totally different than others!
t
On Tue, 9 Nov 2010 05:09:50 -0500, Michael Picher wrote:
> You're almost always better off doing your routing in routers (imagine
> that)... rather than leaving it up to individual hosts.
Like you say,'almost'. Sometimes it's simpler to just add a small function on a
server.
Figured it's worth
You're almost always better off doing your routing in routers (imagine
that)... rather than leaving it up to individual hosts.
On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 1:08 PM, m...@grounded.net wrote:
> > You can also leave the server untouched and add a route on your (SIP/RTP)
> > default-gateway (192.168.1.6)
> You can also leave the server untouched and add a route on your (SIP/RTP)
> default-gateway (192.168.1.6):
>
> ip route 172.16.30.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.1.
> This solution has the advantage that the SipX box can be
> replaced/rebuild/upgraded etc without having to think about the routing.
G
You can also leave the server untouched and add a route on your (SIP/RTP)
default-gateway (192.168.1.6):
ip route 172.16.30.0 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.1.
All your SIP/RTP traffic will flow as usuall. All the Web/Gui traffic will
flow via 192.168.1.6 to 192.168.1.1
If you also send ICMP-redire
> This is just plain routing on linux and does not really have anything to do
> with sipx.
I posted this on sipx list because this is where the sipx experts are who would
know if there might be problems in doing this, specifically with this software.
_
-
From: sipx-users-boun...@list.sipfoundry.org
To: sipx-users
Sent: Mon Nov 08 12:04:21 2010
Subject: Re: [sipx-users] Adding second route
> When you use this command:
> route add -net 172.16.30.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.1.1
>
> All Traffic sent by your sipx that is destined to
> When you use this command:
> route add -net 172.16.30.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.1.1
>
> All Traffic sent by your sipx that is destined to the network 172.16.30.0
> is sent over the gateway 192.168.1.1 all other traffic is not affected at
> all.
To confirm then, traffic originated from
Sorry I have been very busa at the end of last week.
Yes indeed. That is what I meant.
When you use this command:
route add -net 172.16.30.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.1.1
All Traffic sent by your sipx that is destined to the network 172.16.30.0 is
sent over the gateway 192.168.1.1 all oth
Is that what you wanted to know? Does it better explain what I am trying to
achieve?
___
sipx-users mailing list
sipx-users@list.sipfoundry.org
List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-users/
> Why are there 2 Gateways in the Network of your sipx? Which nets are they
> connected to?
I have several gateways on the network, each for it's own traffic to prevent
packets flowing on to network segments they don't belong on. It's also a
security measure of course.
> If there is only one sp
Maybe you should tell us more about the network topology of the system.
Why are there 2 Gateways in the Network of your sipx? Which nets are they
connected to?
If there is only one specific IP Network connected to the 192.168.1.1 then
you can add a specific route only for this network and the def
Are there any problems with adding a second route to sipx?
For example, I have a box which has it's gateway as 192.168.1.6 but I need it's
port 8443 traffic to reply to 192.168.1.1.
In fact, I need only the web interface to reply to 192.168.1.1, everything else
remains 192.168.1.6.
The system i
14 matches
Mail list logo
