Re: (PM) Sticky routing problem

System Administration Staff (root@mwis.net)
Fri, 26 Jun 1998 10:09:34 -0500 (CDT)

I answered my own question. I thought the route was automatically added
when the static block was assigned to the login ala Ascend Max. . . after
a closer look at the routing tables, I noticed that it wasn't. After
trying every possible combination of the route command, I stumbled upon
the correct syntax (I think):
add route 192.168.1.0/29 192.168.1.1 1

Does this work?

- Steve

On Fri, 26 Jun 1998, System Administration Staff wrote:

> This should be a no-brainer, but. . .
>
> I have a customer who just bought a 16-IP block of addresses. He's
> getting a TTL expired in transit. Here's the diagram:
>
> 192.168.0.254------192.168.0.1 [2-253] --- 192.168.1.1/29
> Router PM3 pool #1 Customer's
> [dynamic IP's] Addresses
>
> I'm out of room on the class C that the PM3 uses for dynamic IP
> assignment, so I have this customer on another class C. A static route
> has been added to the router (whole network is static - I don't believe in
> RIP or OSPF :) and the customer's login is set for 192.168.1.1 with a
> netmask of 255.255.255.240.
>
> He gets 'TTL Expired in transit' from the router and a traceroute shows a
> routing loop between the router and the pm3 - like the pm3 doesn't know
> what to do with the packets.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> - Steve
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
> 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
> Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>
>

-
To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with
'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message.
Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>