On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 01:09:22PM +0100, Hakan Koseoglu wrote: > Fons, > > On 24 May 2010 09:33, <fons@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Machine A > > > > ??eth0 ?? 192.168.1.100 ?? general IP > > ??eth1 ?? 192.168.99.1 ?? ??audio > > > > Machine B > > > > ??eth0 ?? 192.168.1.101 ?? general IP > > ??eth1 ?? 192.168.99.2 ?? ??audio > > > As long as you have a netmask of 255.255.255.0 on the network cards, > you don't have to set up a route. They're on the same network and will > chat to each other w/o going throuh the default route. A routing is > required when you want to chat machines outside your local network as > defined by your netmask bits. I think what might not be obvious is that a route is automatically created whenever a new interface comes up-- a route to its own local network. i.e. right now my routing table is: $ route -n Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 68.28.49.85 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 0.0.0.0 68.28.49.85 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0 If I bring up a local network, say: $ sudo ifconfig eth0 192.168.42.177 up The route to that 42 network is added to the routing table: $ route -n Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 68.28.49.85 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 192.168.42.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 68.28.49.85 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0 Again, assuming we're keeping it simple and dealing with non-overlapping netmasks, a local route doesn't have to be added explicitly. Maybe that's what caused the confusion. -ken _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-user mailing list Linux-audio-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.linuxaudio.org/listinfo/linux-audio-user
