Ondrej-
Thanks for that info. Adding the route in using ip route add, and proto
static did the trick. Popped right in, and everything else worked as
expected.
Also, message received regarding the package upgrade. I simply grabbed
it quick for this development box, but I'll be sure to upgrade it before
I put it into production.
Thanks to everyone for their assistance.
Tom
On 10/19/2012 5:21 PM, Ondrej Zajicek wrote:
On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 10:06:30AM -0400, Tom Beecher wrote:
That much I follow, but the 172 route still doesn't appear. To clarify,
I manually added that with :
route add -host 172.16.100.100 dev eth0
It was my assumption that because the 172 route was manually added I
needed to access it through the kernel protocol, which is why that's why
I was going in that direction.
Yes, you are right, manually added routes should be imported by kernel
protocol (while 'native' device routes that are created by kernel
could be imported using direct protocol).
Am I missing something else simple here?
There is one issue related to routes without gateway, see this thread:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg01039.html
In short, there are two ways to fix it. Either use attached patch to BIRD
source and rebuild, or create these routes with another 'protocol source'.
I don't know whether 'protocol source' could be changed when route is
added using 'route' command, but for 'ip' command you can use
ip route add 172.16.100.100/32 dev eth0 proto static
instead of just
ip route add 172.16.100.100/32 dev eth0
