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

To: <cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de>
Subject: Re: Win2k and CIPE
From: "Hans Steegers" <hsx,AT,dds,DOT,nl>
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2003 02:09:29 +0200
Reply-to: "Hans Steegers" <steegers,AT,steegers,DOT,nl>

>No this is on the client(s) not the server.  If you lie about the size of
>the subnet on the client end it should send all packets to the server
>which then worries about which subnet they should be going to.
Jake,
If you specify a route to a subnet, you are already on. What would you
expect to happen? The packet is already on the destination subnet!
I am not surprised you can't get this to work.

Hans Steegers

-----Original Message-----
From: Jake Bullet <jbullet,AT,cats,DOT,meow,DOT,at>
To: Hans Steegers <steegers,AT,steegers,DOT,nl>
Cc: cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de <cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de>
Date: Wednesday, September 03, 2003 12:32 AM
Subject: Re: Win2k and CIPE

>On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Hans Steegers wrote:
>
>> Jake,
>>
>> >I've tried adding routes for 172.16.0.0/255.255.0.0 and the win2k client
>> >seems to fail to route packets for 172.16.0.0 down it.
>>
>> Shouldn't that be 172.16.0.0/255.255._255_.0 for cibcb0 !?
>>
>> A mask of 255.255.0.0 includes both 172.16.0.2 AND  172.16.1.2, so it is
>> difficult to know to which interface to send the packets..
>>
>> Hans Steegers
>>
>
>No this is on the client(s) not the server.  If you lie about the size of
>the subnet on the client end it should send all packets to the server
>which then worries about which subnet they should be going to.
>
>Stephen
>
>
>--
>Message sent by the cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de mailing list.
>Unsubscribe: mail majordomo,AT,inka,DOT,de, "unsubscribe cipe-l" in body
>Other commands available with "help" in body to the same address.
>CIPE info and list archive:
<URL:http://sites.inka.de/~bigred/devel/cipe.html>


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