route command failure after upgrade

[F. Heitkamp]

I upgraded TCP/IP and MPTN. During the boot
process there is a message: ROUTE: Command Failed: File Exists.
Which file exists that isn't supposed too?

Everything seems to work OK otherwise.

Fred

[Dominique Pivard]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2000 07:18:37, fhe...@attglobal.net (F. Heitkamp)
wrote:

> I upgraded TCP/IP and MPTN. During the boot
> process there is a message: ROUTE: Command Failed: File Exists.
> Which file exists that isn't supposed too?

I think that when route.exe complains about a "file that exists", it
actually refers to a route that has already been defined. If I
remember correctly, the syntax for ifconfig.exe and route.exe is not
exactly the same in the later versions of the program. Run the said
executables with the -? parameter to see all available options.

> Everything seems to work OK otherwise.

Then you may want to delete the redundant route statement from
\mptn\bin\setup.cmd

-Dominique

[F. Heitkamp]

In message <3Bd8PsIG3uxi-pn2-StLEICpUVTFY@tp560x> - do...@kenavo.NOSPAM.fi

(Dominique Pivard)14 Aug 2000 13:01:55 GMT writes:
>
>On Sun, 14 Aug 2000 07:18:37, fhe...@attglobal.net (F. Heitkamp)
>wrote:
>
>

>I think that when route.exe complains about a "file that exists", it
>actually refers to a route that has already been defined. If I
>remember correctly, the syntax for ifconfig.exe and route.exe is not
>exactly the same in the later versions of the program. Run the said
>executables with the -? parameter to see all available options.
>

Looks like you're right (see output from setup.cmd below). The
problem is, is that I believe that file was written by the MPTN
setup GUI program. It appears it's writing an old syntax file.

How do I fix the file, or upgrade the GUI frontend?

>> Everything seems to work OK otherwise.
>
>Then you may want to delete the redundant route statement from
>\mptn\bin\setup.cmd
>
>-Dominique
>

[C:\mptn\bin]route -fh
192.168.0.1 lan done

[C:\mptn\bin]ifconfig lo 127.0.0.1

[C:\mptn\bin]ifconfig lan0 192.168.0.2 netmask 255.255.255.0

[C:\mptn\bin]REM ifconfig lan1

[C:\mptn\bin]REM ifconfig lan2

[C:\mptn\bin]REM ifconfig lan3

[C:\mptn\bin]REM ifconfig lan4

[C:\mptn\bin]REM ifconfig lan5

[C:\mptn\bin]REM ifconfig lan6

[C:\mptn\bin]REM ifconfig lan7

[C:\mptn\bin]REM ifconfig sl0

[C:\mptn\bin]route add default 192.168.0.2 1 1>null
ROUTE: command failed: File exists

[C:\mptn\bin]route add net 192.168.0 192.168.0.2 1 netmask 255.255.255.0
ROUTE: command failed: File exists
Old ROUTE syntax, assuming route via gateway.
add net 192.168.0: gateway 192.168.0.2

[C:\mptn\bin]ipgate off

[lsu...@mb.sympatico.ca]

On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 20:57:25, fhe...@attglobal.net (F. Heitkamp)
wrote:

The above "default route" is incorrect. Your default route should
NOT have a gateway/router address that is identical to your
machines IP address. It will not work. Your "default route" IP address
should be the "gateway address" supplied by your ISP or the address
of the "gateway" router that you have connected to your private LAN.

BTW it is failing because the "net route" for 192.168.0 is
automatically
assigned to your machine's IP address.

> [C:\mptn\bin]route add net 192.168.0 192.168.0.2 1 netmask 255.255.255.0
> ROUTE: command failed: File exists
> Old ROUTE syntax, assuming route via gateway.
> add net 192.168.0: gateway 192.168.0.2
>

The above statement is redundant (and yes it is a bug in the TCP/IP
configuration notebook). It fails because the TCP/IP stack
automatically
generates this same route before the "route" statements are processed

You can delete the "route add net" from the file (or from the
configuration
notebook routing tab).

--
Lorne Sunley