Brilliant, you are a genius!
I need to do a little more testing on my code, but this looks really good!
Many thanks to you and to all who took my question seriously,
dave c
you wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Cornejo wrote:
>
> > We have this running on Linux, but it's my belief that we're
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Cornejo wrote:
> We have this running on Linux, but it's my belief that we're actually
> exploiting a bug or flaw in the Linux routing. The closest I've
> gotten is to set add a route like this on .1:
>
> .1 has a netmask of 0x
>
> route add 192.168.1.2 -interf
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 02:07:32PM -0800, Dave Cornejo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got a unique routing problem:
>
> local network is 192.168.1.0/24
>
> 192.168.1.4
> |
> |
> 192.168.1.1 -- ethernet -- 192.168.1.2 / global IP addr -- internet
>
> I over-simplified the problem - I'm not talking about 4 hosts on pure
> Ethernet here, I'm really talking about hundreds to thousands with
> some portions running over radio. The rules change dynamically and
> pretty frequently (like potentially on the order of seconds) - I have
> a routing daem
On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 02:07:32PM -0800, Dave Cornejo wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've got a unique routing problem:
>
> local network is 192.168.1.0/24
>
> 192.168.1.4
> |
> |
> 192.168.1.1 -- ethernet -- 192.168.1.2 / global IP addr -- internet
>
you wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Cornejo wrote:
>
> > local network is 192.168.1.0/24
> >
> > 192.168.1.4
> > |
> > |
> > 192.168.1.1 -- ethernet -- 192.168.1.2 / global IP addr -- internet
> > |
> > |
> >
On Wed, 29 Jan 2003, Dave Cornejo wrote:
> local network is 192.168.1.0/24
>
> 192.168.1.4
> |
> |
> 192.168.1.1 -- ethernet -- 192.168.1.2 / global IP addr -- internet
> |
> |
> 192.168.1.3
>
> now,
