>
> Simon J Mudd wrote:
>
> > this must be in the 2.1.x sources, as it's not in the kernel sources for 2.0.30
>
> If you're running 2.0.30[+moduleXX] then this is not the case and you must
> also configure the manual route using the route command. If you're not
> and it still seems to work then I'm surprised as well. You should be
> advised that you have network unreachable (providing I understand your
> configuration on this point).
I'm with 2.0.29+module?? The route command is not explicitly added,
and when I explicitly add it everything works fine.
> You would normally use something like:
>
> ifconfig ax0 aa.bb.cc.dd netmask 255.255.255.0 up
> route add aa.bb.cc.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 ax0
>
> as a matter of course for each IP interface. I can't remember whether
> you are or not, I'm working off Craigs assessment that you aren't.
However the ifconfig I'm using clearly states that the defining the netmask
and broadcast address is equivalent to adding the route.
thus the route command is not normally needed.
Obviously with rpsfd-0.08, and my kernel I must explicitly put this
route in, and doing so does solve my problem.
Thanks everyone for the time in finding the problem. The only thing I'm
not sure about is whether it should be required that the route be
explicitly stated, and maybe, due to ifconfig's behaviour (which appears to
not be specific to linux) rspfd should try and locate the information
which is not directly in the routing table.
Obviously it doesn't help if there having changes from 2.0.x to 2.1.x
which might make Craig's work more complicated, but if this is the case,
I'll just have to upgrade I guess.
-- regards,Simon J Mudd, Madrid SPAIN +34-1-559 2854 e-mail: terhi.victor@logonet.com [short messages - from radio hams] ----> trtb@microdop.org