Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 13:22:48 -0600 (MDT) From: Nick Rogness <nick@rapidnet.com> To: Marko Ruban <marko@tellurian.com> Cc: FreeBSD questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Routing issue with cable modem Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010201258560.42184-100000@rapidnet.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010201218360.55477-100000@rapidnet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Nick Rogness wrote: Made an error in my previous statement, clarification below: > On Fri, 20 Oct 2000, Marko Ruban wrote: > > > I tried replicating my windows routing table in freebsd. > > Only one entry didn't work... (guess) > > "route add default 10.17.56.xx" > > > > I'm cursed ! > > My guess guess would be your DHCP client is not working right. > Is it suppose to be using DHCP? Is it really something else like > PPPoE? > > You see, the problem is not that the network is unreachable. It > is that the default network is not DIRECTLY reachable. This is a > violation of basic routing principles...although many devices work This is not neccessarily true. There are some instances where this is perfectly legal and are out-of-scope for this mail. However, they are usually handled by dynamic routing protocols and/or other equipment/software interaction. This argument has come up before on this list and the concept has went back and forth on why's and why not's. > with that setup (Windows,Cisco,etc). FreeBSD does not allow you > to add a default route to a network that is not directly > connected. > > Why don't you dump your windows routing table `route -print` to > the list and we could put together a routing table for you or see > what is acutally going on. > Nick Rogness - Drive defensively. Buy a tank. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0010201258560.42184-100000>