Paulo Santos wrote:
François TOURDE wrote:
Le 15182ième jour après Epoch, Paulo Santos écrivait:
Plus this routes:
10.0.0.0 /255.0.0.0 - 10.120.43.158 62.48.163.64/255.224.0.0 -
10.200.34.158 192.168.168.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
If your syntax is "ip/mask - gateway", then the second line use a
gateway not in your ip range (10.200... vs 10.120...), or this is a
typo error.
It is "IP/Mask - Gateway". Those 3 lines are a copy&paste of the
email the provider sent me. Seeing it is impossible for the 2nd line
to work, I'll contact them to clarify it.
Well, it was an error from the provider afterall. Everything should be
OK now.
10.200.34.152/29 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.200.34.153
62.48.163.64/27 via 10.200.34.158 dev eth0
192.168.168.0/26 via 10.200.34.158 dev eth0
192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.202
10.0.0.0/8 via 10.200.34.158 dev eth0
default via 192.168.0.254 dev eth0
If it doesn't work, it probably is something else other than routes.
unruh wrote:
You can't have 2 gateway lines, because gateway is equiv to
"route default", and you can't have 2 default destinations.
?? I do not think I agree. The gateway simply says -- if you get an
address that matches the route, send the packet on to the gateway to
deal with it. It is NOT the equivalent of a default route (which is--
if the address does not match anything else in the route, ship it on
to default gateway to deal with). A specific gateway is not
equivalent to a default gateway.
In that case, having it declared in the interfaces is the same as
configuring a route manually, right?
Best regards,
Paulo Santos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4e319cf2.2040...@sapo.pt
