Help on routing table

[Craig White]

On Sun, 2006-04-02 at 16:43 +0200, Roger Grosswiler wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 02.04.2006, 17:37 +0200 schrieb antonio montagnani:
> > 2006/4/2, Roger Grosswiler <roger at gwch.net>:
> > > Am Sonntag, den 02.04.2006, 16:13 +0200 schrieb antonio montagnani:
> > > > I have a server with eth0 (192.168.0.1) and eth1(192.168.254.1) and I
> > > > connect by an Ethernet modem (192.168.254.254) by PPoE by eth1.
> > > >
> > > > I get these information from ifconfig and route -n
> > > > sbin/ifconfig
> > > > eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:11:D8:BF:9F:05
> > > >           inet addr:192.168.0.1  Bcast:192.168.0.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
> > > >           inet6 addr: fe80::211:d8ff:febf:9f05/64 Scope:Link
> > > >           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
> > > >           RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > >           TX packets:72 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >           collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
> > > >           RX bytes:0 (0.0 b)  TX bytes:9676 (9.4 KiB)
> > > >           Interrupt:21
> > > >
> > > > eth1      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 52:54:05:E5:82:46
> > > >           inet addr:192.168.254.1  Bcast:192.168.254.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
> > > >           inet6 addr: fe80::5054:5ff:fee5:8246/64 Scope:Link
> > > >           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
> > > >           RX packets:888 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > >           TX packets:934 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >           collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
> > > >           RX bytes:429031 (418.9 KiB)  TX bytes:129154 (126.1 KiB)
> > > >           Interrupt:21 Base address:0xec00
> > > >
> > > > lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
> > > >           inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
> > > >           inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
> > > >           UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:16436  Metric:1
> > > >           RX packets:3806 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > >           TX packets:3806 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >           collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
> > > >           RX bytes:6875583 (6.5 MiB)  TX bytes:6875583 (6.5 MiB)
> > > >
> > > > ppp0      Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
> > > >           inet addr:87.9.158.250  P-t-P:192.168.100.1  Mask:255.255.255.255
> > > >           UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST  MTU:1492  Metric:1
> > > >           RX packets:847 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
> > > >           TX packets:819 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> > > >           collisions:0 txqueuelen:3
> > > >           RX bytes:407494 (397.9 KiB)  TX bytes:99093 (96.7 KiB)
> > > >  /sbin/route -n
> > > > Kernel IP routing table
> > > > Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface
> > > > 192.168.100.1   0.0.0.0         255.255.255.255 UH    0      0        0 ppp0
> > > > 192.168.0.0     0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U     0      0        0 eth0
> > > > 192.168.254.0   0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U     0      0        0 eth1
> > > > 169.254.0.0     0.0.0.0         255.255.0.0     U     0      0        0 eth1
> > > > 0.0.0.0         192.168.100.1   0.0.0.0         UG    0      0        0 ppp0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Is it correct?? Why a double entry for eth1??
> > > > Tnx for help
> > > > --
> > > > Antonio Montagnani
> > > > Skype : antoniomontag
> > > >
> > >
> > > 169.254.0.0 is the private range for ip-adresses windoze uses by
> > > default :-D
> > >
> > > Roger
> > >
> > > --
> > > fedora-list mailing list
> > > fedora-list at redhat.com
> > > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
> > >
> > I didn't know.
> > Just for fun: why is this range reported in my Fedora configuration??
> > Do you mean that there is some connection to Windows file sharing??
> > And why is it reported in a Linux box??
> > Just for my knowledge....
> > 
> > Tnx
> 
> Antonio,
> 
> not quite sure, i think this comes, if you have the
> samba-client-packages installed (in fact, they are by default). Samba
> itself is a free implementation of NT- or W2K-Servers on linux, so they
> surely try to stay "standard" with their implementation.
----
what?

Nothing whatsoever to do with Windows, samba. Let's not misinform.

zeroconf is the reason for its presence.

Craig