On 13-01-23 07:03 PM, lleachii@aol.com wrote:
(Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ Hessu,
I'm using RIP44 v1.1 for route population. Line 201 is modified to add routes to table '44.' My setup is rather straightforward. You will find my configuration files at:
IP rules specify:
- FROM 44.60.44.0/24 TO my 192.168.LAN.0/24 use main table, priority 1
(not required for operation)
- TO 44.0.0.0/8 use table 44, priority 44
- FROM 44.0.0.0/8 use table 44, priority 45
My main table (that tunl0 uses) has the following 3 routes:
- default via 192.168.LAN.1 dev eth0 metric 100
- 44.60.44.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 44.60.44.1
- 192.168.LAN.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src
192.168.LAN.IPofRouter
Table 44 contains 2 routes at startup:
- EITHER (1) - 'default via 169.228.66.251 dev tunl0 onlink' (for
Internet access for 44hosts - the 44.0.0.1 via AMPR populates via RIP44 when I use this route)
-OR-
- '44.0.0.1 via 169.228.66.251 dev tunl0 onlink' (I need one of these
seeded in my router RIP44 to operate, if I use the default, the 44.0.0.1 route above is added by RIP44 automatically as '44.0.0.1 via 169.228.66.251 dev tunl0 onlink window 840')
AND
(2) - 44.60.44.0/24 dev eth1
~Lynwood
44Net mailing list 44Net@hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net http://www.ampr.org/donate.html
Has anyone tried rip44d on a dd-wrt router? Probably not enough room for the ip table? Just curious as I have a couple of these routers, also have an e2500 running tomato....was thinking I could just dedicate a router to amprnet to simplify my setup... Cheers, John (BRRR...-20c here with wind chill -30)