Hi James,
I totally overlooked this. Thank you for your help.
Regards,
Robin
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 09:16:09AM -0600, James Yonan wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2004, Robin G. Wenninger wrote:
>
> > Hi list,
> >
> > I have a kind of "problem" here.
> >
> > I thought about connecting several subnets with 2.0 and for this purpose
> > use the PUSH/PULL-Options.
> >
> > So I used options like
> > push "route 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0"
> > push "route 192.168.1.0 255.255.255.0"
> >
> > To push all known subnets to the Clients. But the problem is, if I push
> > route 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 to the Client which "owns" this subnet it
> > overwrites the old routing entry and kicks its Subnet.
> >
> > My recommendation would be a kind of exception list.
> > Something like
> > push "route 10.0.0.0 255.255.255.0" except common-name
> >
> > What do you think about this, is there any other (good to administrate)
> > solution?
>
> Interestingly enough, I think that this exception mechanism is already
> built into the way that IP routing works.
>
> For example, suppose I push my all-inclusive /16 subnet:
>
> push "route 10.11.0.0 255.255.0.0"
>
> Now suppose a client has taken a /24 subset of this range such as
> 10.11.45.0/255.255.255.0.
>
> The all-inclusive /16 route will match at a lower priority in the client's
> routing table than the client's private /24 subnet, so both subnets can
> coexist on the client. The 10.11.45.0/255.255.255.0 subnet will match on
> any of the client's local traffic, while packets directed to 10.11.x.y
> will get routed back to the server when x is not equal to 45.
