On Fri, 17 Mar 1995, Brett Lymn wrote:

> OK now we are getting somewhere.  The next thing to check is if the
> routers know that to get to your NetBSD box they need to use
> 204.191.16.9 as the gateway.  I would guess that the router just sees

204.191.16.9 would be the gateway to the remote host...B

> the machine 204.191.16.2 on the same subnet and blasts the packet out
> the correct interface when it should be forwarding the packet to
> 204.191.16.9 to be sent down the SL/IP interface.  What you need to do
> is:
> 
>  a) update the router's routing tables to define 204.191.16.9 to be
>     the gateway for 204.191.16.2 
> 
> OR b) put 204.191.16.2 on an unallocated
>       subnet and tell the router that 204.191.16.9 is the gateway for
>       that subnet.
> 

I'm not sure that I adequately described my situation...

  [Router]---isdn---[Bridge]---ethernet---[Server]---slip---[Remote]
204.191.16.1      204.191.16.253     204.191.16.2 ed0     204.191.16.3
                                     204.191.16.9 sl0
|                                             |                      |
+------Physical Network #1--------------------+-Physical Network #2--+

On each physical network, I have complete connectivity. Between the 
networks, however, there is no connection. Do I have to manually set up 
some kind of gateway between 204.191.16.2 and 204.191.16.9 (ed0-sl0)? 
I've even (through OS/2) explicitly done "route add 204.191.16.2 
204.191.16.9" for the Remote host, and the remote still can't see the 
other network... Setting 204.191.16.2 as the default route gets me 
nowhere (hangs) and setting 204.191.16.9 as the default route lets me do 
whatever I want with the server...

Steve