QUESTION:
>I say 'netstat -r', and I see this:
>
> ---------------------
> zinc# netstat -r
> Routing tables
> Destination Gateway Flags Refcnt Use Interface
> localhost localhost UH 9 23390 lo0
> blazer zinc UH 0 0 du0
> default blazer UG 1 963 du0
> 192.159.15.96 zinc U 34 268792 le0
> 192.159.15.64 zinc U 1 389 le0
> ---------------------
>
>The last line, where network .64 points to zinc, is wrong, and should
>be removed. (It shows up automatically, I don't know why.)
>I want to get rid of it, so I say 'route delete', but that doesn't work:
>
> ---------------------
> zinc# route delete 192.159.15.64 zinc
> delete host 192.159.15.64: gateway zinc: not in table
> ---------------------
>
>A second run of 'netstat -r' shows the same table as before.
>Does anyone recognize this behavior?
>
>Possibility: we use netmasking to subdivide our Class C network into several
>subnets. I may be doing something wrong with the netmask setup.
>
>Extra Credit: why does the bad route show up in the first place?
>I didn't put it there.
ANSWER TO THE EASY PART:
------------------------
The reason that
route delete 192.159.15.64 zinc
doesn't work is because I'm supposed to say:
route delete net 192.159.15.64 zinc
^^^
This works instantly.
EXTRA CREDIT (unresolved):
--------------------------
It's still not clear why the .64 route showed up in the first place.
Many respondents asked to see the 'ifconfig' readout: here it is.
le0: flags=63<UP,BROADCAST,NOTRAILERS,RUNNING>
inet 192.159.15.102 netmask ffffffe0 broadcast 192.159.15.127
Also, here is the /etc/netmasks file:
192.159.15.0 255.255.255.192
192.159.15.64 255.255.255.224 < wrong route to this net
192.159.15.96 255.255.255.224
192.159.15.128 255.255.255.224 < zinc lives here
192.159.15.160 255.255.255.252
192.159.15.164 255.255.255.252
192.159.15.168 255.255.255.252
192.159.15.172 255.255.255.252
192.159.15.176 255.255.255.252
192.159.15.180 255.255.255.252
192.159.15.240 255.255.255.248
192.159.15.248 255.255.255.248
Someone at Sun recently told me that this is an 'illegal'
netmasks file, because there was more than one line. I suppose
she meant that our Class C net could only use one subnet mask.
I probably wouldn't have done it this way, but hey, it's been working
fine until now. No doubt the route to .64 is due to a mistake
of mine.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
David Mostardi Email: david@capmkt.com
Senior Support & Systems Manager Phone: (510) 540-6400
Capital Market Technology, Inc. FAX: (510) 540-5505
1995 University Ave. #390, Berkeley CA 94704
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : Fri Sep 28 2001 - 23:07:53 CDT