Subject: Re: Routing issue (no route to default host)
To: J. W. Ballantine <>
From: Alan Barrett <>
List: tech-net
Date: 02/14/2003 16:49:14
On Fri, 14 Feb 2003, J. W. Ballantine top-posted:
> OK, I'm more of a routing newbie than Anthony, can't find the network
> stack code, and really don't want to reinstall any changes after each
> cvsup.  Is there any other way to allow routing packets to a 10.x.x.x
> address.  If not would you point me to where the stack code is?

Top-posting, and failure to trim any quotes down to just enough to
provide context for your own remarks, is likely to annoy people enough
that they don't want to help you.

You seem to think that NetBSD has a hard-coded refusal to route to
10.x.x.x addresses.  I am sure that there's no such thing.

Now, addressing your original question:

> >  > Situation is the cable modem service here.  All that is available
> >  > is a "one-way" cable modem (asynchronus, cable downlink, analog
> >  > phone modem uplink), and the strange way the cable modem's
> >  > hardware seems to operate.  It assigns me a public address of
> >  >, while the default router is at .

They should be allocating you an address in the same subnet as your
default gateway.  Either they are crazy or you didn't understand what
they intended.

> >  > In short, I am never able to add a route to that address, as
> >  > there is no route to the 10.x.x.x subnet.

Right.  If your provider is crazy and really intends this setup to work,
then you will need to add a route to the 10.x.x.x subnet.  Try something
like this:

    route add -net -netmask -interface

This should works adequately if the interface has a unique IP address.
I have never understood why the NetBSD "route add" command doesn't take
an interface name in this context.

--apb (Alan Barrett)