If the ether0 interface is 209.40.64.254 then this is INVALID. YOU CANNOT
USE A LOCAL INTERFACE AS THE GATEWAY IN A ROUTE ENTRY. A gateway for a
route should not be local to the device.
Besides, this is pointless. If ether0 is 209.40.64.254, and the netmask on
ether0 is /25 - then this is in there automatically.
I believe what happened was that by adding this route you srewed up the
routing table. And when it was removed later it caused the normal local
route to NOT appear. Don't do this, NEVER do this. Make sure you do not
have any static routes using the ether0 as a gateway and reboot, the normal
route should come back. If not, something was seriously hosed with the
route play.
>your right when we added route 209.40.64.128/25 209.40.64.254 1 it did not
In fact, adding this is likely to *break* things. I think this was the
start of the trouble.
>fix things. a livingston tech added a route of 209.40.64.128/25
>209.40.64.132 1 and removed 209.40.64.128/25 209.40.64.254 1 and the neteork
That's not really the right fix. The fact that the 'NL' route entry is
missing for ether0 is a sign that things are really messed up in the routing
table. Likely caused by overwriting it with the same route as a static
entry - which was later removed.
-MZ
-- <URL:mailto:megazone@megazone.org> Gweep, Discordian, Author, Engineer, me.. Join ISP/C Internet Service Providers' Consortium <URL:http://www.ispc.org/> "A little nonsense now and then, is relished by the wisest men" 781-788-0130 <URL:http://www.megazone.org/> <URL:http://www.gweep.net/> Hail Discordia! - To unsubscribe, email 'majordomo@livingston.com' with 'unsubscribe portmaster-users' in the body of the message. Searchable list archive: <URL:http://www.livingston.com/Tech/archive/>