similar to: (null) in ip route get

This comse from iproute-ss050901, rebuilt on FC4 with -fortify-source option. Seems like ip has a buffer overflow which sometimes causes a segfault.. will try to look at it tmrw, so far here''s my gdb output. $ gdb ip GNU gdb Red Hat Linux (6.3.0.0-1.21rh) Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc. GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are welcome

I have two IP for eth0 which correspond to eth0 and eth0:1 I want to create a route to 192.168.66.0/24 via 192.168.0.50 from eth0:1 so I add the route with ip route add 192.168.66.0/24 via 192.168.1.2 dev eth0:1 but when I connect to 192.168.66.0/24 network in connects still using the IP of eth0, not the IP of eth0:1 as one would expect. What''s strange to me is that ip route list

This is really strange behavior .. root@garfield ~# ip tunnel add testing123 mode ipip remote 192.168.1.1 local 192.168.1.12 root@garfield ~# ip tunnel show .. testing123: ip/ip remote 192.168.1.1 local 192.168.1.12 ttl inherit root@garfield ~# ip tunnel add testingabc mode ipip remote 192.168.1.1 local 192.168.1.12 root@garfield ~# echo $? 0 root@garfield ~# ip tunnel show .. testing123:

Hi When I start arpwatch or tcpdump the Ethernet card eth0 goes into promiscuous mode but I cannot see it with ifconfig eth0 or ip link show. The only way I can see it is when I looked at dmesg. Ifconfig uses the old style IOFLAG way to determine this but looking into ip code this is supposed to work even with newer kernels (I''m on 2.6.17 now with the latest iproute package) I found

tc.c has the following line snprintf(buf, sizeof(buf), "/usr/lib/tc/q_%s.so", str); the libdir should not be hardcoded but it should be detected at build time. Radek -- Radek Vokál <rvokal@redhat.com> Base OS Engineering Office: +420 543 422 235 Red Hat Inc. http://www.redhat.com

There''s a flag 10000 that is not recognized by iproute. The kernel uses #define IFF_LOWER_UP 0x10000 /* driver signals L1 up */ #define IFF_DORMANT 0x20000 /* driver signals dormant */ -- Radek Vokál <rvokal@redhat.com> _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl

Hi, this appeared on Red Hat bugzilla and I''m not sure if customer presumption is correct `ip -6 route add 10::a120/124 via 10::a111` returns RTNETLINK answers : invalid argument His expected result is that route table to subnet 10::a120/124 should be added <snip> I know RFC3587 described prefix 001b is the unicast global address range assigned by IANA, and all other unicast

This is an example rule from sample.rules r ^[^/] /tftpboot/\0 # Convert non-absolute files but it seems to be broken in tftpd-0.40. This comes from syslog when accesing sample file on server. Dec 22 14:11:35 localhost in.tftpd[10443]: r rules cannot be inverted, line 1: ^[^/] /tftpboot/\0 # Convert non-absolute files this was already present in 0.39 version and according

Start tftp with no host name Enter a host name When looking at the tftp> prompt press ^C $ tftp (to) localhost tftp> *** glibc detected *** double free or corruption (fasttop): 0x08b8b9c0 *** Aborted I've attached a patch fixing this issue but I'm not convinced this is the right way to do it. Radek -- Radek Vok?l <rvokal at redhat.com> -------------- next part

Hello Im having a problem similar to sawar Here is my configuration --------------eth1---192.168.1.128---------- -------------192.168.1.1 ISP router 1 | my | ---Eth0---192.168.10.157----| | | linux |

Hello all I continue fighting with load balancing, I though it was easier :-/ Here is the script with my configuration #!/bin/sh IFI=eth0 IPI=192.168.10.155 NMI=24 IFE1=eth1 IPE1=192.168.1.128 NWE1=192.168.1.0 NME1=24 BRD1=192.168.1.255 GWE1=192.168.1.1 IFE2=eth2 IPE2=192.168.254.128 NWE2=192.168.254.0 NME2=24 BRD2=192.168.254.255 GWE2=192.168.254.254 ip link set $IFI up ip addr add

Hi! I have many problems getting this thing to work. There''s a host with two network interfaces, where there are two routers to Internet in two separated networks. The host uses multihop routing for deciding to which router send the packets... but the routing decision is wrong made. Some packets with source address of one NIC, go to other network. I have a host with three NICs in it:

I have a 2.6.12(ubuntu-patchset), kernel recompiled with this routing options: [*] IP: advanced router [*] IP: policy routing [*] IP: equal cost multipath Load balancing is working great, but i have problems whits long term tcp flows (like msn-messenger or vpns or any other type of long term ip based conection). I assume this is because after a period of time, the per-host

Hi, I think I found a problem in iproute or ubuntu kernel. I think that the "ip route get" returns wrong interface and gateway in an multipath routing environment on Ubuntu 6.06 LTS. I reported it also to launchpad as a bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/iproute/+bug/105521 The easiest way to reproduce it is to start an Ubuntu 6.06 LTS Live on a system with three

Dear all, I''ve the following problem with routing + NAT: If I''ve two ISP and I''m using two nexthop in default route with MASQUERADE on both ISP links, I see routing cache regenerated, but sometimes packets sent to a new link (after cache regeneration) uses wrong source address for masquerading. Here is the config. I''ve two links to outside via two

Hi, my box is connected to 3 networks, eth0 eth1 wlan0. I want "my" traffic to go via wlan0 and everything from eth1 NATed to eth0: eth0 192.168.1.10/24 eth1 172.16.1.1/12 wlan0 192.168.10.190/24 I first tried this with two single hosts: iptables -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE -o eth0 -t nat iptables -A POSTROUTING -j MASQUERADE -o wlan0 -t nat echo 200 Forw >>

I have centos 6 running kvm. IPv4 works perfectly works. But I am having some problem with ipv6, looks like its bridge routing problem but stuck. here are my bridge detail: bridge name bridge id STP enabled interfaces br0 8000.000af75613f2 no eth1 vnet1 br4 8000.000af75613f0 no eth0 ip -6 route shows : unreachable ::/96 dev lo metric 1024 error -101 mtu 65536 advmss 65476 hoplimit 4294967295

Hello, I need some help about a routing problem on a complex configuration. The problem is that I can''t reach from services outside from my DMZ. The scenario is a gateway linked to three internet connections, so that I used three distinct iproute2 tables for routing. The gw is running ipvs for balancing over the dmz''s servers. DMZ servers are on 192.168.1.0/24 network, .

hi i have a strange night with our firewall ;) i wanted to utilize the icmp redirect packages to connect our to different networks on the same segment i have a lot of these messages in dmesg: Redirect from 10.0.0.2 on lo about 152.66.235.1 ignored. Advised path = 0.0.0.0 -> 0.0.0.0, tos 00 --- with tcpdump i saw strange packets crawling on the lo interface ;) IP 10.0.0.2 > 0.0.0.0: icmp

hi all, i am setting up a load balancing network with failover, i have applied julian patch, but whenever i try to establish a new connection from any client node, it gives me two entries in the routing cache for that destination with different or same interface for those entries, but off the two entries only one route path is used for the transmission. the ip rule/route are as follows,