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

Subject: Re: Final resort CIPE routing question
From: Sven Schulthei▀ <schulti,AT,discus,DOT,wh,DOT,uni-stuttgart,DOT,de>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001 18:10:13 +0100
In-reply-to: <003101c07a48$2d0bb5b0$be01a8c0@trollslayer>

mikeeo wrote:
> 
> Well to me it doesn't look like you have a route for cipcb0, also post your
> option files

For me too.

> 
> > 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

The output of route should look like
192.168.1.0     *       192.168.1.252   UG     0      0        0 cipcb0

> >
> > Greetings !
> >

Yannick, looks like you have used the following routing command:
route add -net 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev cipcb0 or something
similar.
This is wrong. Use
route add -net 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.1.252
instead. Then your routing  should be ok.
As far as I know just setting up a route throug the cipe tunnel doesn't
work.

Good luck!

Sven





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