On Thu, 03 Feb 2000, you wrote:
> At 06:39 PM 2/3/00 +0000, Richard Adams wrote:
> >On Thu, 03 Feb 2000, you wrote:
> >> 2. The actual output of "route -n". (This is the same as "netstat -n", BTW.)
> >
> >I bet it was still early in the morning there Ray,? route -n and netstat
> -n are
> >the same.??
> >
> >route -ne
> >netstat -orn
> >are the same.
>
> You are quite right, Richard (including your observation about the time). I
> keant to write "netstat -nr", but even then I'm not really correct. But
> "route -n" and "netstat -nr" do both give the most important information --
> the routing table itself in address (not hostname) form -- while not
> identical, they display the same items in fields 1-4, and the rightmost field.
Yep, those fields (5 6 and 7) are normaly not important to Inet users, however
they are absolulty unmissable for slower links used by Ham radio.
Hence my sharp eye, afterall when you are just getting up its afternoon here.
> ------------------------------------"Never tell me the odds!"---
> Ray Olszewski -- Han Solo
> Palo Alto, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
--
Regards Richard
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://people.zeelandnet.nl/pa3gcu/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
