From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Marek Lindner Subject: Re: [B.A.T.M.A.N.] 0.3 alpha (today revison) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2007 22:04:04 +0200 References: <43619.85.41.146.90.1190473783.squirrel@krisma.oltrelinux.com> <200709222051.41244.lindner_marek@yahoo.de> <44243.85.41.146.90.1190490081.squirrel@krisma.oltrelinux.com> In-Reply-To: <44243.85.41.146.90.1190490081.squirrel@krisma.oltrelinux.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200709222204.04195.lindner_marek@yahoo.de> Reply-To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Id: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: The list for a Better Approach To Mobile Ad-hoc Networking Am Samstag, 22. September 2007 21:41:21 schrieb a.anselmi@oltrelinux.com: > >> Still remain the minor problem in arrangement of IPIPA subnet mask: > >> 169.254.0.0/16 on clients > >> 169.254.0.0/24 on gateway > > > > I don't know where you can see that. The tun interface is a point to > > > > point connection ... > > ...sure, it was a safe-IP on my router which cause that messages about > 169.254.0.0 route: now changed safe-IP out of ipipa subnet. Excuse my ignorance but what is "ipipa" ? Even wikipedia does not know it. ;-) And let me repeat my question: Where did you see that routing entry "169.254.0.0/16" ? Or is that problem also gone ? Greetings, Marek