From: Michele Andreoli ([email protected])
Date: Tue Sep 05 2000 - 10:18:58 CEST
On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 09:31:50PM +0200, Sven Conrad nicely wrote:
> > > [eth0 = 192.168.1.200]
> > > route add -net 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0
> > > route add -net 192.168.2.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.1.1
> > > route add -net 192.168.3.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.1.100
> The subnet's 2 & 3 are not connected! So they are only reachable via
> gateways.
> The gateways itself lay on the subnet 1 so they are reachable.
>
> [box] --(subnet1)------- [gw1] ----- (subnet 2)
> !
> !------------[gw2]------ (subnet 3)
Ok, I understand the point now: many route, but with different gateway.
This explain why we have 3 basic entry in the route table, otherwise
each previous route will generate identical entry!
Michele
-- I'd like to conclude with a positive statement, but I can't remember any. Would two negative ones do? -- Woody Allen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.6 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 15:27:15 CET