Subject: Re: Wierd routing problem....
To: Dave Burgess <email@example.com>
From: David Jones <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 04/11/1998 16:11:16
Dave Burgess wrote:
| I have recently installed two Frame Relay circuits (Osicom Routermates)
| through a single FRAD here in the server room. The local frad has
| 184.108.40.206 as it's address. The remotes are 220.127.116.11 and
| 18.104.22.168, with the appropriate routes, etc. set up to them in the
| Cisco and on the other routers in the system.
A diagram, showing the FRADs, NetBSD boxes, Ethernets and frame relay links
along with all IP addresses and configured netmasks would help.
| None of my NetBSD boxes can seem the remotes. I watched the traffic,
| and the ARP requests go out, but the Osicom can't (won't?) respond with
| the "IHAVE" one would expect. If I establish a server-based static
| route, traffic flows smoothly.
Can you see ARP request/responses from the W95 boxes?
| 1) The 95 machines don't do Classless routing.
AFAIK, W95 doesn't do routing AT ALL.
W95 supports one interface only. It may be PPP, it may be Ethernet. But
only one at a time.
You give this interface an IP address, and a netmask.
You set up a default router.
If a datagram cannot be delivered directly, then W95 will ARP the default
router and deliver it. Even if the configuration is otherwise invalid, such
that a proper routing stack would complain that the default router is
As an example, here's the configuration info that I got from my ISP when
I got my 2.2 Mbps ADSL connection. The "ADSL modem" is a box with a telco
jack at one end, and a UTP Ethernet port on the other.
IP address: 22.214.171.124
Default gateway: 126.96.36.199
The service tech at Sympatico was surprised that I called him up to question
this - the W95 users had no problem! Fortunately, I was lucky enough to
be bounced to someone with a clue, who mentioned that 188.8.131.52 would also
work as a router.