<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

Subject: Re: Final resort CIPE routing question
From: "Yannick Vansevenant" <yannick.vansevenant,AT,mobyus,DOT,com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 16:15:23 +0100
In-reply-to: <003101c07a48$2d0bb5b0$be01a8c0@trollslayer>

Hi,

thanks for the answer but I think that's already the case if you look at the
crux servers' route output :

> [root@crux /root]# route
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use
> Iface
> 192.168.0.10    localhost  255.255.255.255 UGH   0      0        0 lo
> 192.168.0.15    localhost  255.255.255.255 UGH   0      0        0 lo
> 192.168.1.252   *       255.255.255.255 UH    0      0        0 cipcb0
> 192.168.0.131   localhost  255.255.255.255 UGH   0      0        0 lo
> 192.168.254.0   *         255.255.255.240 U     0      0        0 eth0
> 192.168.1.0     *       255.255.255.0   U     0      0        0 cipcb0
> 192.168.0.0     *       255.255.255.0   U     0      0        0 eth1
> 127.0.0.0       *         255.0.0.0       U     0      0        0 lo
> default   192.168.254.1   0.0.0.0         UG    0      0        0 eth0

Greetings !

----- Original Message -----
From: "mikeeo" <mikeeo,AT,email,DOT,msn,DOT,com>
To: "Yannick Vansevenant" <yannick.vansevenant,AT,mobyus,DOT,com>; 
<cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de>
Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2001 3:54 PM
Subject: Re: Final resort CIPE routing question

> Hmmm....did ya try adding gateways for the CIPE interfaces? eg. route
> add -net 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw cipcb0? that way all packets
> destin for 192.168.1.0 will go out the cipe interface, anything not
matching
> will goto the default route.
>
> just my 2 cents
>
> -Mike





<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]