My situation is:
1) Local LAN 10.0.0.0/8
2) gateway assigned by dhcp on that LAN: 10.x.y.a
3) Host X on the LAN has assigned 209.122.66.XXX IP address by
ISP DCHP.
After much patience and advice from Guido van Rooij on how this
can be made to work. The first step was to man
On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 09:13:18AM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
> > IIRC this is his situation:
> > 1) Local LAN 10.0.0.0/8
> > 2) gateway on that LAN: 10.17.47.37
> > 3) Host X on the LAN that should have an 209.122.66.XXX IP address.
> >
> > I assume here that he controls the 10.17.47.37
-- In Response to your message -
> Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 12:39:34 +0100
> To: Barney Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: Guido van Rooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: route pointing to a gateway that's not on net
>
> Why
Why don't we just start all over again.
IIRC this is his situation:
1) Local LAN 10.0.0.0/8
2) gateway on that LAN: 10.17.47.37
3) Host X on the LAN that should have an 209.122.66.XXX IP address.
I assume here that he controls the 10.17.47.37 gateway.
This is what he should do:
# give host IP a
On Sat, Mar 15, 2003 at 10:42:39PM +0100, Guido van Rooij wrote:
>
> You already mentioned that adding the -iface route to 10.* in combination
> with a default route to your gateway worked for everything except 207.172.3.*.
Actually, I don't think that's what he wrote. Rather, that net is an
exa
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 04:17:39PM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
>
> Of the 3 different possibilities mentioned:
>
> I did try route add -net without -iface, and the result was
> no route to host.
>
> I didn't try to arp to 207.172.3.* hosts because that sounded like
> a fix for only one small
-- In Response to your message -
> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 21:29:44 +0100
> To: "J. W. Ballantine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: Guido van Rooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: route pointing to a gateway that's not on net
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 03:07:26PM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
> Quite frankly, blunt is not a problem, one needs to call them as one sees
> them. However, responding to a question with a condesending, superior
> attitude(IMHO), while ignoring the question is. As for "just try what
> people
-- In Response to your message -
> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:11:40 +0100
> To: "J. W. Ballantine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: Guido van Rooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: route pointing to a gateway that's not on net
&g
On Fri, Mar 14, 2003 at 09:51:46AM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
> So what you are saying is that with the:
>route add -net default -iface -interface xl0
> command the system thinks there is a direct connect. Doesn't this
> then send all packets out, since there is no address supplied with
>
ooij <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: route pointing to a gateway that's not on net
> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:34:18PM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
> >round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 3.022/3.428/5.029/0.801 ms
> >#
On Thu, Mar 13, 2003 at 03:34:18PM -0500, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
>round-trip min/avg/max/stddev = 3.022/3.428/5.029/0.801 ms
># ping 207.172.3.8<<< one of isp's name server
>PING 207.172.3.8 (207.172.3.8): 56 data bytes
>ping: sendto: Host is down
>p
On Thu Mar 6 23:56:51 2003, [EMAIL PROTECTED] suggested:
> Use :
> route add -net 10.17.47.37/32 -cloning -iface xl0
> that sould work.
I've tried several variations of this with limited success:
Script started on Thu Mar 13 12:26:27 2003
# ifconfig xl0 inet 209.122.66
route add -net and reversed the
order of the route and ifocnfig command, same result.
Thanks for any help/handholding.
-- In Response to your message -
> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:47:30 -0800 (PST)
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Kevin Stevens" <[EM
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > From: "Kevin Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: Re: route pointing to a gateway that's not on net
> >
> >
> > > Well it's not the way I wanted it, but it's the way I have to try and
> &
On Wed, 5 Mar 2003, J. W. Ballantine wrote:
> I was recently following a thread on tech-netbsd that was discussing
> the routing tables when the gateway address was on a 10.x.x.x network
> while the machine was assigned a 209.122.66.x address. The long and short
> of the discussion (as I underst
In Response to your message -
> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2003 10:47:30 -0800 (PST)
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Kevin Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: route pointing to a gateway that's not on net
>
>
> > Wel
> Well it's not the way I wanted it, but it's the way I have to try and
> work with.
>
> I tried the route add net 10.0.0.0 -interface (whatever)
> and that didn't work for me.
That's not the syntax I gave you, and obviously it needs to have your
local interface information inserted. I can confi
T)
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Kevin Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: route pointing to a gateway that's not on net
>
> >
> > I was recently following a thread on tech-netbsd that was discussing the
> > routing tables wh
>
> I was recently following a thread on tech-netbsd that was discussing the
> routing tables when the gateway address was on a 10.x.x.x network while
> the machine was assigned a 209.122.66.x address. The long and short of
> the discussion (as I understand the discussion) was that this was that
>
I was recently following a thread on tech-netbsd that was discussing
the routing tables when the gateway address was on a 10.x.x.x network
while the machine was assigned a 209.122.66.x address. The long and short
of the discussion (as I understand the discussion) was that this was
that while it c
21 matches
Mail list logo
