Route command challenges

The scenario is:

All traffic to 192.168.0.0 should be routed to RouterA EXCEPT for 192.168.222.0 which is direct connect to this server running Windows 2003(ServerA).

In ServerA, do I have to do the route command for each subnet one by one or can I have 2 route commands - one for the generic 192.168.0.0 and one for the exception 192.168.222.0? How?

Thanks.

M.

Just set up a route for 192.168.0.0 pointing to the router. Directly
connected traffic won't be affected - direct delivery is a higher priority
that any route command.

"M. Eteum" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> The scenario is:
>
> All traffic to 192.168.0.0 should be routed to RouterA EXCEPT for
> 192.168.222.0 which is direct connect to this server running Windows
> 2003(ServerA).
>
> In ServerA, do I have to do the route command for each subnet one by one
> or can I have 2 route commands - one for the generic 192.168.0.0 and one
> for the exception 192.168.222.0? How?
>
> Thanks.
>
> M.

The route command would be

route add -p 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 <IP address of router>

"Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Just set up a route for 192.168.0.0 pointing to the router. Directly
> connected traffic won't be affected - direct delivery is a higher priority
> that any route command.
>
> "M. Eteum" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> The scenario is:
>>
>> All traffic to 192.168.0.0 should be routed to RouterA EXCEPT for
>> 192.168.222.0 which is direct connect to this server running Windows
>> 2003(ServerA).
>>
>> In ServerA, do I have to do the route command for each subnet one by one
>> or can I have 2 route commands - one for the generic 192.168.0.0 and one
>> for the exception 192.168.222.0? How?
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>> M.
>
>

Bill Grant wrote:
> The route command would be
>
> route add -p 192.168.0.0 255.255.0.0 <IP address of router>
>
> "Bill Grant" <not.available@online> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Just set up a route for 192.168.0.0 pointing to the router. Directly
>> connected traffic won't be affected - direct delivery is a higher priority
>> that any route command.
>>
>> "M. Eteum" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> The scenario is:
>>>
>>> All traffic to 192.168.0.0 should be routed to RouterA EXCEPT for
>>> 192.168.222.0 which is direct connect to this server running Windows
>>> 2003(ServerA).
>>>
>>> In ServerA, do I have to do the route command for each subnet one by one
>>> or can I have 2 route commands - one for the generic 192.168.0.0 and one
>>> for the exception 192.168.222.0? How?
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>> M.
>>
>
>

I though so too, but not sure that the direct connection take precedence than the route table.

Thank you.

M.