RE: routing table question

2004-09-24 Thread John Smith
asurto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 5:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: routing table question > > > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:16:15 -0400, Tony Uceda Velez > wrote: > > > > >

RE: routing table question

2004-09-24 Thread Sergio Basurto
> From: Sergio Basurto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 5:48 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: routing table question > > > On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:16:15 -0400, Tony Uceda Velez > wrote: &

RE: routing table question

2004-09-24 Thread Tony Uceda Velez
: Re: routing table question On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:16:15 -0400, Tony Uceda Velez wrote: > > sorry to have recycled the subjectreal question > below. > > Tony UcedaVélez > Security Analyst > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 877.884.1110 > -- > SecureWorks. Rock

Re: routing table question

2004-09-24 Thread Sergio Basurto
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:16:15 -0400, Tony Uceda Velez wrote: > > sorry to have recycled the subjectreal question > below. > > Tony UcedaVélez > Security Analyst > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 877.884.1110 > -- > SecureWorks. Rock-solid Internet security. > No hassles. No headcount. No capital

Re: Routing table question

1999-07-28 Thread Buddha Buck
> "David H. Silber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I still don't understand something. Doesn't the line: > > 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 > > mean "send everything addressed to IP's 192.168.1.* through default > gateway"? But this way the kern

Re: Routing table question

1999-07-28 Thread David H. Silber
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 06:07:55PM -0400, Arcady Genkin wrote: > "David H. Silber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The default is for addresses whose routes are not specified by the > > routing table. Packets destined for any computer with an IP in the > > 192.168.1.0 network will be sent out eth0

Re: Routing table question

1999-07-28 Thread Arcady Genkin
Paul Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I still don't understand something. Doesn't the line: > > > > 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 > > eth0 > ^^^ > Don't let those 0s confuse you. That means there is not gateway defined > for

Re: Routing table question

1999-07-28 Thread Paul Miller
Arcady Genkin wrote: > > I still don't understand something. Doesn't the line: > > 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 ^^^ Don't let those 0s confuse you. That means there is not gateway defined for that route. Also look in the four

Re: Routing table question

1999-07-28 Thread Arcady Genkin
"David H. Silber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I'm reading "TCP/IP Administration" by O'Reily, and have a question on > > the routing table on my Debian box. It's quite simple: > > > > Kernel IP routing table > > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt > > If

Re: Routing table question

1999-07-28 Thread David H. Silber
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 05:50:03PM -0400, Arcady Genkin wrote: > Hi all: > > I'm reading "TCP/IP Administration" by O'Reily, and have a question on > the routing table on my Debian box. It's quite simple: > > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS W