Well, I received absolutely no response on this at all. I figured it out for myself.
I used a 'route add -interface' command, for which there is no example or format for in the MAN page
for route. There are indeed new functions in this release as opposed to 4.0B. I don't
know if it 'they' were added in C or D. I don't care what the details are at this point.
I used the command:
myserver[root]# route add -interface 123.45.67. 123.45.67.8 -netmask 255.255.255.0
where 123.45.67 is the network attached and 123.45.67.8 is the IP for 'myserver'.
This worked.
I had tried it without the trailing dot on the net IP and it dropped the .67 octet, and set the routing table
to 123.45/24 instead the trailing dot version (correct) of: 123.45.67/24.
The behaviour is NOT like that in 4.0B version of whatever routines do the routing.
A simple 'route add -net 123.45.67 123.45.67.8 used to work under 4.0B.
Thanks to all of me who replied!
-----Original Message-----
From: Wayne Sweatt [SMTP:sweatt_at_dps.state.nm.us]
Sent: Friday, May 28, 1999 10:59 AM
To: 'DU Mail List'
Subject: New 4.0D routing behaviour?
I am having this strange problem with my routing tables
on my two AS2100s since there upgrade from 4.0B to 4.0D.
It seems that when I traceroute between the two, it takes a good
60 seconds or so, and then replys with the Cisco interface IP
as the first hop. These two are on the same segment! They shouldn't
even be routing. If I make the -interface entry to try the interface
for their network, it still trys to route out the default gateway.
Both servers exhibit the same behavior.
Another anomaly, is that when telnet/ftp'ing in from outside via the
router, the login response takes forever.
IF I use the -r option with traceroute, and thereby ignore the routing
tables, I get a correct, instant, unrouted response, so I know I've
got something going on screwy with my routing tables.
Please Help.
Wayne Sweatt
Received on Fri May 28 1999 - 23:10:47 NZST