Tod Merley wrote: > On 9/22/06, Mikkel L. Ellertson <mikkel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> The default route is through eth1 with a gateway of 192.168.1.12. It >> should be through eth0 with what ever gateway address is provided by >> the ISP. This is why traffic for the Internet, that should g out >> eth0, is going out eth1. It looks like the default route was set the >> way it was in order to get to the 169.254.0.0 network through >> 192.168.1.12 instead of providing a proper route to that network. If >> this is the case, then what is needed instead is a route specificity >> for 169.254.0.0 using 192.168.1.12 as the gateway. >> >> Mikkel >> > Hi Mikkel! > > Just wondering. The IP 169.254.0.0 looks a bit strange (I thought .0 > was not allowed or represented some kind of broadcast. Also the > address when "whois"ed references RFC 3330 and there I find it > mentioned as: > > 169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated for > communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain these > addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP server may not be > found. > > My thinking when I saw it is that it is part of Zeroconf - which I > simply do not understand. I would think that if he sets the network > up by hand or by using DHCP on the local network from his mentioned > machine the reference to 169.254.0.0/16 becomes moot. > > Thanks! > > Tod > Hi Tod, From other messages, it does sound like we can ignore the 169.254.0.0. I guess I should have specified that 169.254.0.0 is a network address, and not a host address. Most routes are to networks, and not specific hosts. You can specify the route to a specific host as well. But it usually isn't needed unless you have a point to point connection. Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
