On 12/22/05, martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- Jason Crawford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > IP - 209.216.76.1 > > > Netmask - 255.255.255.252 > > > GW - 209.216.77.6 > > > > > Either a typo in your netmask, or a typo in your gateway, since your > > gateway IP does not belong to the current netmask you assigned to > > your > > external IP. I have a feeling it's a typo in the netmask as that's a > > very very small one. > > > > Jason > > > Jason. > > The figures are correct (I wondered about the unusual GW when I first > rx'd it but they said it was correct). The thing is, I've had this > connection for a couple of years and have run a number of firewalls > with no issue with these ie. Linux Router Project, Freesco and others I > have tested. It is running now with a commercial firewall with no > problems.
I really really doubt it. The point of the router is route 2 or more networks together. How on earth can you route 2 networks together when there isn't a router for your network? In other words: your network needs a gateway on your segment in order to find it's way to what you are telling us is your gateway. I don't see how *anything* would work with those, and would go so far as too say that anything that would work with those is broken. --Bryan
