Hi all, this might have been covered, although going over the archives at mailman.ds9a.nl, I haven''t been able to find it: I seem to be missing the default table, even though I''ve got a local and main table: [root@wolverine net]# ip rule 0: from all lookup local 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup 253 Instead, I''ve got a ''253'' table... ''wolverine'' is a multihomed machine with addresses on the following networks: 64.26.132.192/26 192.168.8.0/24 192.62.100.0/24 It has a default route on the 64.26.132.192 network, and also routes to 192.168.8.2 which has a cable modem attached. What I want to do is have all traffic from 192.62.100.0/24 routed through a default gateway of 192.168.8.2 instead of wolverine''s default gateway. I''ve accomplished this easily by creating a new table ''1'' and rule, the table being created before the ''main'' table. The problem is, with this setup, all traffic for the 64.26.132.192/26 network from 192.62.100.0/24 is also routed through 192.168.8.2. I got around this by adding an explicit rule to route via 64.26.132.193 for anything on 64.26.132.192/26 into table 1. I was under the impression that my 3 main tables should have been ''local'', ''main'', and ''default''. ''main'' would contain routes to adjacent networks, and ''default'' would contain default routes. So I could have solved my problem by just creating a table with precidence in between main and default, and changed the default gateway for 192.62.100.0/24 without changing network routes too. Does this make sense? And if so, does anyone know why I have a table ''253'' with nothing in it, and no ''default''? I''m running iproute2-2.2.4-now-ss001007.tar.gz from ftp://ftp.inr.ac.ru, with kernel 2.4.5. My userland utilities, like ifconfig, ifup, etc are from RH6.2ish. Would they make a difference? Thanks! -- Adrian Chung (adrian at enfusion-group dot com) http://www.enfusion-group.com/~adrian GPG Fingerprint: C620 C8EA 86BA 79CC 384C E7BE A10C 353B 919D 1A17 [toad.enfusion-group.com] up 2 days, 12 min, 8 users
Adrian Chung wrote:> > Hi all, this might have been covered, although going over the archives > at mailman.ds9a.nl, I haven''t been able to find it: > > I seem to be missing the default table, even though I''ve got a local > and main table: > > [root@wolverine net]# ip rule > 0: from all lookup local > 32766: from all lookup main > 32767: from all lookup 253 > > Instead, I''ve got a ''253'' table...[--snip--]> I was under the impression that my 3 main tables should have been > ''local'', ''main'', and ''default''. ''main'' would contain routes to adjacent > networks, and ''default'' would contain default routes. So I could have > solved my problem by just creating a table with precidence in between > main and default, and changed the default gateway for 192.62.100.0/24 > without changing network routes too.Well, according to the "Linux 2.4 Advanced Routing HOWTO" the default table (or 253) should be empty and the default route should be in ''main''.> Does this make sense? And if so, does anyone know why I have a table > ''253'' with nothing in it, and no ''default''?Actually, I don''t know why there isn''t a default table but one named ''253''. I have the same here on a RedHat 7.1 system running kernel 2.4.5 with iproute2-ss000305.> I''m running iproute2-2.2.4-now-ss001007.tar.gz from > ftp://ftp.inr.ac.ru, with kernel 2.4.5. > > My userland utilities, like ifconfig, ifup, etc are from RH6.2ish. > Would they make a difference?Greetings, Juri
On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 02:04:01PM +0200, Juri Haberland wrote:> > I was under the impression that my 3 main tables should have been > > ''local'', ''main'', and ''default''. ''main'' would contain routes to adjacent > > networks, and ''default'' would contain default routes. So I could have > > solved my problem by just creating a table with precidence in between > > main and default, and changed the default gateway for 192.62.100.0/24 > > without changing network routes too. > > Well, according to the "Linux 2.4 Advanced Routing HOWTO" the default > table (or 253) should be empty and the default route should be in > ''main''.Hmm, that''s strange. So in the situation I have, where the router is connected to 3 adjacent networks physically, and I only want to alter the default gateway for one subnet, without affecting the other local network routes, how would I do it? I''m assuming that if I insert a table before ''main'', as I currently do, I have to duplicate all the routes to other local networks. If I add the table after ''main'', the default route that''s in main overrides whatever default route I would put in the new table. Is this logic sensible?> > Does this make sense? And if so, does anyone know why I have a table > > ''253'' with nothing in it, and no ''default''? > > Actually, I don''t know why there isn''t a default table but one named > ''253''. I have the same here on a RedHat 7.1 system running kernel 2.4.5 > with iproute2-ss000305.Okay, at least I''m not alone. :) -- Adrian Chung (adrian at enfusion-group dot com) http://www.enfusion-group.com/~adrian GPG Fingerprint: C620 C8EA 86BA 79CC 384C E7BE A10C 353B 919D 1A17 [toad.enfusion-group.com] up 2 days, 17:17, 9 users
Adrian Chung wrote:> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2001 at 02:04:01PM +0200, Juri Haberland wrote: > > > I was under the impression that my 3 main tables should have been > > > ''local'', ''main'', and ''default''. ''main'' would contain routes to adjacent > > > networks, and ''default'' would contain default routes. So I could have > > > solved my problem by just creating a table with precidence in between > > > main and default, and changed the default gateway for 192.62.100.0/24 > > > without changing network routes too. > > > > Well, according to the "Linux 2.4 Advanced Routing HOWTO" the default > > table (or 253) should be empty and the default route should be in > > ''main''. > > Hmm, that''s strange. So in the situation I have, where the router is > connected to 3 adjacent networks physically, and I only want to alter > the default gateway for one subnet, without affecting the other local > network routes, how would I do it? > > I''m assuming that if I insert a table before ''main'', as I currently > do, I have to duplicate all the routes to other local networks. > > If I add the table after ''main'', the default route that''s in main > overrides whatever default route I would put in the new table. > > Is this logic sensible?I assume so. Actually I''m in a similar situation as you and I''m just about using ''ip'' to set up a default route for our backup internet link, which has (for historical reasons) also a subnet with DMZ associated with it. Juri