[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:  Bcast:  Mask:
>>           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.
> 					Ryan

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 mailing list