[conspire] Routing question
Edmund J. Biow
biow at sbcglobal.net
Sun Jun 1 09:39:46 PDT 2008
> Edmund J. Biow wrote:
>> # ifconfig -a
>> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:0F:B0:10:02:38
>> inet addr:192.168.1.126 Bcast:192.168.223.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
>> UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
>> RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>> TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>> collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
>> RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
>> Interrupt:185 Base address:0x4000
>> The ethernet is set with a static IP address, otherwise I suspect it
>> wouldn't have any address at all.
> Right. You have a directly-connected interface (eth0) which is in
> 192.168.1.x, so it would normally use that route. You're overriding that
> with a route to go over ath0 instead. To solve, either deconfig the IP
> address on eth0 or use the route add command you're using.
> Also, but unrelated, the broadcast address on eth0 is wrong.
Thanks for the comment, Ryan, using static IPs & a hosts file on my
wired LAN just seemed easier than figuring out the intricacies of how a
WINS server worked when I started out with Linux a few years ago. I
should probably revisit the issue now that I have a low-powered "always
on" file server that could handle name resolution, but it isn't a big
priority with my extremely limited stock of synapses.
Actually, the broadcast address for eth0 is correct, it is just that
when I edited the post initially I decided it would be clearer to use
192.168.1 & 192.168.2 than my actual rather random sub-nets (223 for the
wired network), but neglected to "fix" the broadcast address in my post.
More information about the conspire