also sprach Derrick 'dman' Hudson <dman@dman.ddts.net> [2002.06.12.0412 +0200]:
> Looking at that routing table, it looks like you have the same (well,
> overlapping) subnet on 2 interfaces. Linux doesn't like having
> multiple interfaces on the same subnet, unless you do channel bonding.
> My guess is that that is causing the weirdness in your routing.
i currently think it's the boxes on the subnet not knowing about the
gateway and trying direct routing into the network and failing because
of unanswered ARP requests. The routing table itself it okay. things
like this do work with linux.
192.168.1.64/26 -> eth1
192.168.1.0/24 -> eth0
has the result to route .64-.127 via eth1 and the rest via eth0.
essentially, the default route is not different.
--
martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.)
\____ echo mailto: !#^."<*>"|tr "<*> mailto:"; net@madduck
linux or windows :: gpl or gpf
Attachment:
pgpXN0k7AjXxG.pgp
Description: PGP signature