here's my setup on a production server without the hidden patch. and it
works:
# conf begin
[root@slope root]# cat /etc/sysctl.conf | grep arp_filter
net.ipv4.conf.default.arp_filter = 1
[root@slope root]#
[root@slope root]# ip r s all
192.168.x.0/30 dev eth2 proto static scope link src 192.168.x.1
192.168.y.0/30 dev eth1 proto static scope link src 192.168.y.1
193.227.198.51/29 dev eth4 proto static
172.16.z.0/23 dev eth1 proto static scope link src 172.16.z.2
127.0.0.0/8 dev lo scope link
[root@slope root]#
[root@slope root]# ip rule s
0: from all lookup local
10000: from 172.16.z.1 lookup ip01
10002: from 172.16.z.3 lookup ip03
32766: from all lookup main
32767: from all lookup default
[root@slope root]#
[root@slope root]# ip r s table ip01
172.16.z.0/23 dev eth0 scope link src 172.16.2.1
[root@slope root]# ip r s table ip03
172.16.z.0/23 dev eth3 scope link src 172.16.2.3
[root@slope root]#
#conf end
as u can see, I have 3 ips on the same subnet on 3 separate interfaces,
after testing, the setup above works perfectly without the hidden patch:
[root@carve root]# arp -vn
Address HWtype HWaddress Flags
Mask Iface172.16.z.3 ether 00:04:76:DE:u:7B
C eth0
172.16.z.2 ether 00:04:76:DE:v:EC
C eth0
172.16.z.1 ether 00:04:76:DE:w:01
C eth0
Entries: 3 Skipped: 0 Found: 3
[root@carve root]#
On Wed, 2002-11-27 at 09:54, virdzek, roman wrote:
> hi,
> I have set arp_filter to 1 at both eth at PC1.
> then I ping eth2(10.0.0.2) from pc2 (10.0.0.3)
> and both eth1 and eth2 answers to arp request
> from pc2.
>
> it seems to be, that arp_filter is not the proper solution for me,
> i must apply hidden patch from
>
> http://www.linux-vs.org/~julian/#hidden
>
> as advice to me martin.a.brown.
>
> bye
>
> >>ur deliverance is by way of echo 1 >
/proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth{1,2},
> >>that's what everybody says...however, this is not the whole story,
ur
> >>tryina setup two ips on the same subnet on two separate
interfaces... in
> >>simple routing, the first route to match is taken... so the traffic
goes
> >>out the first interface regardless of the source ip... u need to
look
> >>into source-based routing or "policy routing". read the
iproute2 docs.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>hi,
> >>>i have two internal nics
> >>>
> >>> at PC1
> >>>
> >>> eth1 eth2
> >>>10.0.0.1 10.0.0.2
> >>>
> >>> | |
> >>> switch
> >>> |
> >>> pc2
> >>> eth0
> >>> 10.0.0.3
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>and when I ping from pc2 -> PC1:eth2,
> >>>using tcpdump i see that PC1
> >>>send reply to (arp who has 10.0.0.2),
> >>>10.0.0.2 is at .....eth1.
> >>>why PC1 send back not proper HW address?
> >>>how I can force PC1 to say that 10.0.0.2
> >>>is at eth2?
> >>>
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> >http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
> http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/