Oliver Fromme wrote:
Alexandre Biancalana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Today I had to add a new route in the company gateway. So I ran the
> command:
>
> # route add 128.110.0.0 255.255.0.0 10.0.0.17
> add net 128.110.0.0: gateway 255.255.0.0
You used the wrong syntax. Correct syntax is:
# route add -net <destination> <gateway> [<netmask>]
So what your command actually did was to add 255.255.0.0
as a gateway for 128.110.0.0 (with an illegal netmask of
10.0.0.17). You certainly didn't want that, but the
route command did exactly what you told it to do. ;-)
Ok ! Right ! My fault ! In the running of make the new configuration I
typed the command in wrong order.... :-(
> Running netstat -nr I get the following:
>
> 0&0xa000011 255.255.0.0 UGSc 15 332 fxp0 =>
>
> this is incorrect, the interface should be fxp1 not fxp0 (that is the
> default interface).
That's expected. 255.255.0.0 is probably on your default
route, so it'll be routed to fxp0.
> And Why the destination network is 0&0xa000011 and
> not 128.110.0.0
You specified 10.0.0.17 as the netmask, which is 0xa000011
in hexadecimal. When you perform a bitwise-and operation
between your destination (128.110.0.0) and your netmask
(10.0.0.17), you get zero. That's why netstat(1) displays
"0". It also displays the netmask, usually CIDR notation
if possible (i.e. "/x"), but that's not possible with your
weird netmask, so it just displays "&" followed by the mask
in hex.
Have some way to remove this stupid route without flushing the routing
table ???
This machine is main gateway of the company and I can't do a route flush
now, but I need to have this new route working...
# route delete -net 128.110.0.0
route: writing to routing socket: No such process
delete net 128.110.0.0: not in table
Best regards
Oliver
Thank you for ALL the replies, all of then was great !!
Alexandre
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
