On Sun, 18 Oct 1998, Theo. Sean Schulze wrote:
> Obviously there is something I still need to set up in my diald.conf, but
> I don't know what it is. Am I on the right trail suspecting that I need
> to put in an "addroute" line? If that is the case, what should the script
> look like? Would it be a shell script with a 'route' command for each of
> the machines, something like this:
>
> route add -host 192.168.0.1 dev eth0
>
> with one line for each of the two other machines?
No, you should not need to do that. You appear to have the routing
properly setup for hte 192.168.0.0/24 local ethernet, and diald seems to
be adding the proper default routing
> Here is my /etc/hosts:
>
> 127.0.0.1 localhost
> 192.168.0.1 hussar.nuthole.de hussar
> 192.168.0.2 graves.nuthole.de graves
> 192.168.0.3 dragoon.nuthole.de dragoon
I'm nervous about using a real TLD for a private network, but if that were
the problem I would expect ping to report no route to the target (or am I
expecting a diagnostic that some other Unix's ping provides here?) Maybe
traceroute would help identify the actual problem here.
> Here is the result of 'netstat -rn'with diald running:
>
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt
> Iface
> 192.168.0.3 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 1500 0 0
> dummy0
This seems odd. Is .3 supposed to be a real machine? If so, this
certainly doens't belong here.
> 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 1500 0 0
> sl0
Hmmm... maybe using the all-zero address isn't a good idea? Try giving
diald a safe dummy IP address. 192.168.not-zero.something, or anything
from one of the other private blocks that you aren't using. I can't see
why this would matter, but still it strikes me as odd.
I don't see any problems with the rest of it...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-diald" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
