On Mon, 3 Dec 2001, Zacarías Lecumberri Sánchez wrote: > I don't understand why host entries are allowed in the routing table. > Since all addresses belong to a certain network they should be routed > through any of the entries for networks. > Inserting a host in the routing table means having a host not belonging to > the network it is phisically in. One setup I'm using: Router (Linux) has access to two networks, for example 10.2.3.0/24 and 10.5.6.0/24. One box has 10.5.6.4 as it's primary address. Now I need a 10.2.3.0/24 address on the same box (due to bandwidth shaping rules outside of my control) - I let the linux router proxy-arp for 10.2.3.4, add a host-route "10.2.3.4 gw 10.5.6.4" and add this address as eth0:0 - voila, it works and everything runs. Other setup: Provider gives us two adresses, one for router/nat, and one for the webserver. The nat adress is in his normal lan, and he routes the webserver-ip to the nat box. The nat box has three interfaces, one with the external ip, and two with private ranges. One private lan is the dmz, where the webserver gets one ip from the private network attached there, and the one from the provider. One hostroute in the linux router and ready, webserver may serve its pages. The way I don't need to use DNAT, and may use real routing without limits. (Yes, there are many strange setups in grown and not designed networks - first everything is clear and simple, and then come the special-requirements) c'ya sven -- The Internet treats censorship as a routing problem, and routes around it. (John Gilmore on http://www.cygnus.com/~gnu/) - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
