Re[3]: Stuck in a hell of routing :(
Hi,
finaly I got it working the solution is found with ip rule. There you
can define some additional routing tables and then you can give a
special table an extra default gateway. at the end the solution is
something with dynamic rewriting of the IP headers you change the
"next hop" entry for an existing package and then throw it out via an
given device.
I found my solution under http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.html#LARTC.RPDB.SIMPLE
many thanks for your comments
Werner
WO> Hey folks,
WO> I'm new to this list and happy for any input even if this means to
WO> answer some questions or be more specific about what I'm searching for
WO> so please go on :)
WO> Werner
DE>> On Tuesday, 29.03.2005 at 18:27 +0200, martin f krafft wrote:
>>> I know that it's sometimes a good idea to make sure that the person is
>>> actually looking for the right answer, but I have been noticing a
>>> tendency here (and elsewhere) to always ask first about the
>>> motivations.
DE>> Interesting observation ... I'm probably one of those 'guilty' of often
DE>> asking for the motivation behind apparently 'strange' requests.
DE>> It is helpful to those answering the (apparently unusual) query to know
DE>> what problem is being addressed, since past history shows that often the
DE>> poster is approaching the problem from the wrong angle, or may even be
DE>> addressing the wrong problem!
DE>> If I post something strange or esoteric as a question, I feel obliged to
DE>> at least *outline* what my motivations are, if only to pre-empt the sort
DE>> of question that *I* would retort were I answering that same question.
DE>> I agree with you that perhaps Just Answering The Question is an
DE>> appropriate response if it is clear what the solution should be (even if
DE>> it sounds from the original post that The Wrong Question is being
DE>> asked).
DE>> I suppose we could answer the question but also query the poster's
DE>> motives at the same time :-)
DE>> Just thinking out loud ...
DE>> Dave.
Reply to: