No, you are not missing anything, I was. I missed the existence of the gateway setting on the addresses of the IPv4 page, and went straight to the routes dialogue (which duly gives me a gateway option...). Now I've been pointed to the right gateway option, it's all good.
I was trying to add the routes directly to mimick my setup as per route -n on a known good box. But, with the gateway set in the right place, there's no need; indeed, I don't need the routes dialogue at all. It's now empty. Thanks for the assist, On Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 06:08:54PM +0100, Graham Lyon wrote: > Is there a particular reason that you're manually configuring these two > routes? The 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 route is implied by the subnet mask > and so shouldn't be needed, and the 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 route is created by > setting the default gateway box on the ipv4 settings page to the address of > your gateway (192.168.0.12, in your case). Or am I missing something? > > 2009/10/4 Martyn J. Pearce <[email protected]> > > > Apogolies if re-asked, I have searched the mailing-list archive to no > > avail. > > > > I am running a new ubuntu install on a netbook (Eeepc surf), with wired & > > wireless networking available, both domestic manually-configured networks > > (no > > dhcp). I have added Manual profiles to both wired & wireless. I cannot > > get > > the default gateway (192.168.0.12) to configure, however. > > > > I add two routes in the route config panel; one for > > 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0 > > (no gateway), and one for 0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 (gateway 192.168.0.12). Having > > left > > the edit dialogue, and applied, there is no difference to the routing table > > as > > displayed with route -n. If I re-enter the routes edit panel, I find that > > it's collapsed the routes into one, being 192.168.0.0/255.255.255.0(gateway > > 192.168.0.12); but there's no hint of the gateway in the route config. > > > > I have tried checking and unchecking the "use this connection only for > > resources on its network" (I'm sure it should be unchecked, but I tried > > both); > > it makes no difference. > > > > I'm sure I'm being stupid, could somebody take pity and enlighten me as to > > what I'm doing wrong? > > > > I attach the relevant lines from /var/log/daemon.log (grep NetworkManager), > > I've checked the one bug mentioned therein; that is related to publishing > > of > > offline mode rather than setting of default gateways. > > > > Thanks, > > > > [please cc: me on replies, I am not subscribed to the list] > > _______________________________________________ > > NetworkManager-list mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list > > > > _______________________________________________ NetworkManager-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/networkmanager-list
