classless routes

[Enrique de Guindos Carretero]

Yes, you're right. It is a rare case. But I want to route packets to its own
network (192.168.0.0/24) through the router. I want to test something. I
have a firewall on 192.168.0.1 and I want to see if I can apply some rules
even to this own network (192.168.0.0/24).  The problem is I have a special
kind of computer running with WxWorks. Unfortunately, this machine is old
and has a strange behaviour with broadcast packets. Normally I have no
problem. But if a visitor comes with lisa working on his KDE, their
broadcast packages hang this old computer. So I'd like testing if I can
route all packets through this fw and stop those broadcasts on it. I'm not
sure if I can do that. But at least, I'd like to try it. I cannot put this
old computer in other net segment (at present).
2007/2/21, Simon Hobson <dhcp1 at thehobsons.co.uk>:
>
> Enrique de Guindos Carretero wrote:
>
> >subnet  192.168.0.0  netmask 255.255.255.0
> >{
> >         pool
> >         {
> >                 range   192.168.0.15    192.168.0.50;
> >                 option ca-static-routes 24, 192,168,0,0, 192,168,0,1;
> >         }
> >}
>
> What are you trying to achieve here ?
> 192.168.0.0/24 is local to the client, therefore it makes no sense to
> be setting a route to it via another host.
>
>
> >But as soon as a Linux dhcp client boots, it has the normal route table,
> >same as if I do not put the code 121 option:
> >
> >linux_client#> route
> >
> >Destination   Gateway      Genmask        Flags   Metric   Ref   Use
> Iface
> >192.168.0.0   *                 255.255.255.0 U         0          0
> >0       eth0
> >default          192.168.0.1  0.0.0.0           UG       0          0
> >0       eth0
> >
> >And I think I should expect something like
> >
> >Destination   Gateway   ...
> >192.168.0.0  192.168.0.1
> >
> >The above is what I observe on Windows Clients if I add an option for
> code
> >249 instead (or together with) of code 121.
>
> Then I'd say it's the Windows client that is broken !
>
>