Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 21:49:26 -0600 (MDT) From: Nick Rogness <nick@rapidnet.com> To: nino@inode.at Cc: Colin <cwass99@home.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: routing bug(?) persists (PR 16318) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006162138360.96776-100000@rapidnet.com> In-Reply-To: <20000617044351.U24505@TK147108.telekabel.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 handling the routes pointing to you? Static routes? or VLANs or what? Messy...just plain messy. These routing 'rules' are setup for certain reasons...to stop slopping routing techniques. This should all be handled by routing protocols anyway. > > Either you or your ISP needs to alias the adapter on > > this set of subnets, and if you're not the only person on this multi-netted > > section, it really should be them. > > The ISP is giving away lots of /29 subnets and this is a kludge to provide > each client with 1 more useable IP. It's not easy to get many IPs these days. That is exactly what NAT was designed to do. WHat's wrong with a /30? If they are running out of IP's, that is a design flaw in the capacity planning of your ISP...or they don't know what they are doing. Either way, your SOL ;-) > > Windows apparently allows the configuration even without the static route to > the gateway's network, which is very odd. That's not suprising at all. Windows can also not handle a /32 netmask on certain adapters. Nick Rogness - Speak softly and carry a Gigabit switch. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0006162138360.96776-100000>