classless routes
Enrique de Guindos Carretero
eguindos at gmail.com
Wed Feb 21 11:04:26 UTC 2007
Yes, you're right. It is a rare case. But I want to route packets to its own
network (192.168.0.0/24) through the router. I want to test something. I
have a firewall on 192.168.0.1 and I want to see if I can apply some rules
even to this own network (192.168.0.0/24). The problem is I have a special
kind of computer running with WxWorks. Unfortunately, this machine is old
and has a strange behaviour with broadcast packets. Normally I have no
problem. But if a visitor comes with lisa working on his KDE, their
broadcast packages hang this old computer. So I'd like testing if I can
route all packets through this fw and stop those broadcasts on it. I'm not
sure if I can do that. But at least, I'd like to try it. I cannot put this
old computer in other net segment (at present).
2007/2/21, Simon Hobson <dhcp1 at thehobsons.co.uk>:
>
> Enrique de Guindos Carretero wrote:
>
> >subnet 192.168.0.0 netmask 255.255.255.0
> >{
> > pool
> > {
> > range 192.168.0.15 192.168.0.50;
> > option ca-static-routes 24, 192,168,0,0, 192,168,0,1;
> > }
> >}
>
> What are you trying to achieve here ?
> 192.168.0.0/24 is local to the client, therefore it makes no sense to
> be setting a route to it via another host.
>
>
> >But as soon as a Linux dhcp client boots, it has the normal route table,
> >same as if I do not put the code 121 option:
> >
> >linux_client#> route
> >
> >Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
> Iface
> >192.168.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
> >0 eth0
> >default 192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0
> >0 eth0
> >
> >And I think I should expect something like
> >
> >Destination Gateway ...
> >192.168.0.0 192.168.0.1
> >
> >The above is what I observe on Windows Clients if I add an option for
> code
> >249 instead (or together with) of code 121.
>
> Then I'd say it's the Windows client that is broken !
>
>
More information about the dhcp-users
mailing list