This one: ip route add to 44.22.0.136/29 via 64.27.62.53 failed shouldn't be failing. 136 is an evenly divisible base address by the 8 IP addresses between 136 - 143. I do not understand why that one should be failing on Linux. -- 73, de Barry, K2MF >> k2mf.bgs(a)gmail.com On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Don Fanning <don(a)00100100.net> wrote:

Have him try to submit new as I did. That just might work. I could not get the gateway to accept anything either so submitted new and voila she worked. 73, Don - ve3zda _____ From: 44net-bounces+ve3zda=gmail.com(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu [mailto:44net-bounces+ve3zda=gmail.com@hamradio.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Barry Sent: Saturday, May 19, 2012 4:35 PM To: AMPRNet working group Subject: Re: [44net] bogus encap.txt entries This one: ip route add to 44.22.0.136/29 via 64.27.62.53 failed shouldn't be failing. 136 is an evenly divisible base address by the 8 IP addresses between 136 - 143. I do not understand why that one should be failing on Linux. -- 73, de Barry, K2MF >> k2mf.bgs(a)gmail.com On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 4:20 PM, Don Fanning &lt;don(a)00100100.net&gt; wrote: (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ The allocation I got doesn't provide for Network boundaries. In fact, looking at many of the entries in amprhosts, I see that aren't properly subnetted with a network and a broadcast. -Don @ 44.22.0.136 On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Rob Janssen &lt;pe1chl(a)amsat.org&gt; wrote: (Please trim inclusions from previous messages) _______________________________________________ There again are bogus entries in the encap.txt: ip route add to 44.131.211.1/24 via 91.84.215.75 failed ip route add to 44.136.155/22 <tel:44.136.155%2F22> via 203.26.188.134 failed ip route add to 44.22.0.136/29 via 64.27.62.53 failed All of them specify incorrect subnets. Please make sure that all bits outside the subnet you are masking are zero! So, the first entry should be 44.131.211.0/24 instead of 44.131.211.1/24 Note that while JNOS may accept such entries, they are not correct and the Linux kernel will reject them. It also appears that the first two entries do not have any hosts in the ampr.org DNS within that address range. Note that only traffic for addresses that have a DNS entry is forwarded. Rob _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net _________________________________________ 44Net mailing list 44Net(a)hamradio.ucsd.edu http://hamradio.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/44net

Użytkownik Janusz Przybylski SP1LOP napisał: I apologize mistake: xx.xx.xx.136/29 this 137-143, or xx.xx.128/29 this 128-135 it should be : 0-7, 8-15, 16-23, 24-31, etc.... -- 73 de Janusz / SP1LOP ===== Janusz J. Przybylski, SP1LOP ========== Poland AmprNet Co-ordinator [44.165.0.0/16] =============================================

None of this matters as these addresses are subnetted at a higher level. ( 44.22.0.0/16) It was up to the local coordinator to work with groups to better organize the subnets within their realm. To be honest, since I don't live in Alaska anymore, I'd rather be allocated a /24 in the 44.192.0.0/16 subnet. On Sat, May 19, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Janusz Przybylski SP1LOP < 44net(a)mail.sp1lop.ampr.org&gt; wrote:

Barry wrote: You are right, this one failed because it is in encap.txt twice, with conflicting next hop addresses. Rob