Date: Sat, 17 Jun 2000 04:43:51 +0200 From: "Marinos J . Yannikos" <mjy@pobox.com> To: Colin <cwass99@home.com> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: routing bug(?) persists (PR 16318) Message-ID: <20000617044351.U24505@TK147108.telekabel.at> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.000616211713.cwass99@home.com>; from Colin on Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 09:17:13PM -0400 References: <200006151644.JAA02187@mass.osd.bsdi.com> <XFMail.000616211713.cwass99@home.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jun 16, 2000 at 09:17:13PM -0400, Colin wrote: > [...] I honestly see no reason that what > you're doing should work at all. Effectively you're telling your system that > the way to connect to networks that it's address is not part of is to send a > message to a host that is on a network it's address is not part of. It's a > networking catch-22 ;) 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). > 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. > This is definately a routing bug, but it's in Win and Linux if they alloow > this with no error. Windows apparently allows the configuration even without the static route to the gateway's network, which is very odd. -mjy -- ***==> Marinos J. Yannikos <mjy@pobox.com> ***==> http://pobox.com/~mjy 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?20000617044351.U24505>