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

Subject: RE: CIPE proposal
From: Tony Langdon <tlangdon,AT,atctraining,DOT,com,DOT,au>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 01:02:49 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tim lucas [mailto:tim.lucas,AT,toolmantim,DOT,com
> Sent: Friday, 11 October 2002 10:11 AM
> To: 'Tony Langdon'; cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de
> Subject: RE: CIPE proposal
> 
> 
> > Just pluck something weird out of the 10.x.x.x address space or an
> unallocated 192.168.x.x network for this function, assign one of the
> CIPE interfaces .1 and the other .2 from that network.
> 
> The routing tables I proposed in the last email are wrong aren't they?
> 
> For the 192.168.0. subnet in Sydney it should be:
> 
> linux|        route add -net 192.168.1.0 netmask 
> 255.255.255.0 gw 10.0.0.1
> win32|        route add -p 192.168.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0 10.0.0.1
> 
> rather than:
> linux|        route add -net 192.168.1.0 netmask 
> 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.1.1
> win32|        route add -p 192.168.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0 192.168.1.1
> 
> if the CIPE adapter in Sydney has address 10.0.0.1, because 
> the CIPE is
> the gateway to the 192.168.1. subnet.
> Is this correct?

This sounds more like it.


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