Hi Rick,

In this case, what should be the netmask and is there any other settings
is required to make 10.101.66.139 "local" to HPUX?

Best regards,

- Joe

On Wed, 11 Jan 2006, Rick Jones wrote:

> W Howard <whoward@login3.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> > In article <dq2vvq$hga$1@news.hgc.com.hk>,
> > joe wong <joewong@tkodog.no-ip.com> wrote:
> >> I have two NIC configured as follow:
> >>
> >># netstat -nai
> >>Name Mtu Network Address Ipkts Ierrs Opkts Oerrs
> >>Coll
> >>lan2 1500 10.101.10.0 10.101.10.118 431207 0 471484 0 0
> >>lan0 1500 10.101.66.0 10.101.66.118 17263 0 17285 0 0
> >>lo0 4136 127.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 18461 0 18461 0 0
> >>
> >>When I tried to add route:
> >>
> >>route add net 192.168.99.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 10.101.66.139 1
> >>add net 192.168.99.0: gateway 10.101.66.139: Network is unreachable
>
> > Does the host at 10.101.66.139 do packet-forwarding? If it won't
> > foward the packets from its 10.101.66 interface to its 192.168.99
> > interface, then the 192.168.66 network is indeed unreachable.
>
> However, the route command will not know that and would not emit an
> error. That the route command is emitting an error suggests it
> believes that the 10.101.66.139 system is not "local" - all routes on
> HP-UX have to be via locally connected systems.
>
> So, I would wonder what the netmask is for lan0 and the full routing
> table to know if 10.101.66.139 is indeed local.
>
> >>However, I can ping 10.101.66.139:
> >>
> >>ping 10.101.66.139
> >>PING 10.101.66.139: 64 byte packets
> >>64 bytes from 10.101.66.139: icmp_seq=0. time=0. ms
>
> Being pingable does not mean the system is local and so does not mean
> the system can be specified as a router to HP-UX.
>
> rick jones
>

--