From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Dec 13 08:30:06 1995 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id IAA29296 for questions-outgoing; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 08:30:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from intele.net (quervo.intele.net [204.118.149.20]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id IAA29287 for ; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 08:30:03 -0800 (PST) Received: (wes@localhost) by intele.net (8.6.12/8.6.5) id JAA20472; Wed, 13 Dec 1995 09:33:22 -0700 From: Barnacle Wes Message-Id: <199512131633.JAA20472@intele.net> Subject: Re: routing table problem with both slip & ppp active To: jacs@gnome.co.uk (Chris Stenton) Date: Wed, 13 Dec 1995 09:33:21 -0700 (MST) Cc: questions@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "Chris Stenton" at Dec 13, 95 12:29:46 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Sender: owner-questions@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > route add -net 158.152 158.152.22.16 > > However, this gets assigned to the ppp interface even though the gateway > address is assigned to the slip interface? Thus, the packets go via the > ppp interface. I'm not sure if this will solve your problem, but I've found that, in general, if you are routing through a point to point link like PPP or SLIP, it is best to use the "other" end of the link as the routing address. For instance, if your 158.152.22.16 sl0 interface is connected to 158.152.22.1, change the above route command to: # route add -net 158.152 158.152.22.1 -- Wes Peters | Yes I am a pirate, two hundred years too late Softweyr | The cannons don't thunder, there's nothing to plunder Consulting | I'm an over forty victim of fate... wes@intele.net | Jimmy Buffet