Hi all,
When try to move a local route (for an ip addr configured locally) to a
different route table from the local one I can no longer ping the address.
My suspicion is that the local (0) table is "special" and used
directly
without regard for the rules in some circumstances, but I''d like to
confirm that what I''m trying to do isn''t possible before
giving up!
here''s the rule for my new local2 table:
cogneo:~ 11:28am # ip rule ls
0: from all lookup local
100: from 192.168.2.1 lookup redir <-- eventual trickiness
200: from all lookup local2 <-- new table
32766: from all lookup main
32767: from all lookup default
and i moved a single ''local'' route to that table (removed from
local,
added to local2):
cogneo:~ 11:27am # ip route ls table local2
local 66.33.206.41 dev eth1 proto kernel scope host src 66.33.206.41
cogneo:~ 11:27am # ip route ls table local
local 10.3.64.2 dev eth0 proto kernel scope host src 10.3.64.2
local 10.3.64.2 dev eth1 proto kernel scope host src 10.3.64.2
broadcast 192.168.2.255 dev tunl2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.1
broadcast 127.255.255.255 dev lo proto kernel scope link src 127.0.0.1
broadcast 66.33.206.0 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 66.33.206.41
broadcast 10.3.64.0 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 10.3.64.2
local 192.168.2.1 dev tunl2 proto kernel scope host src 192.168.2.1
broadcast 192.168.2.0 dev tunl2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.1
broadcast 66.33.206.255 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 66.33.206.41
broadcast 10.255.255.255 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 10.3.64.2
broadcast 10.3.64.255 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 10.3.64.2
broadcast 127.0.0.0 dev lo proto kernel scope link src 127.0.0.1
local 127.0.0.1 dev lo proto kernel scope host src 127.0.0.1
broadcast 66.255.255.255 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 66.33.206.41
local 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo proto kernel scope host src 127.0.0.1
Once i do that, i can no longer ping 66.33.206.41. (I can before i make
the change, and if i move the route back to the local table. I also
verified that the 100 rule wasn''t to blame.)
Is this destined to not work?
My end goal with this is to allow monitoring of realservers on a linux
virtual server director box. With the TUN or DR directing mechanisms, the
service IP is configured on the director box AND on the realservers, but
only the director responds to arp requests and gets the router traffic.
It decides where packets should go and either rewrites the mac address or
sends packets to the realserver via an IPIP tunnel.
What I''d like to do is allow the director to test the realservers (make
sure services are up) by tunneling a request to the realsrever in question
via an IPIP tunnel. Since that service is on a ip that''s also
configured
locally (on the director, as above) this requires some trickery to send
that traffic through a tunnel interface and not direct it to localhost.
Is that even possible? Or should I give up and use an external host to do
the monitoring? (Or bite the bullet and make all my services bind to
multiple IPs?)
Any suggestions would be much appreciated, thanks!
sage
_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
