| 1 |
I'm going to highlight anomalous routes, those that have no business in the |
| 2 |
local table. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
On Nov 7, 2011 9:14 PM, "Massimiliano Ziccardi" < |
| 5 |
massimiliano.ziccardi@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> I've been deploying multi-interface Linux gateways since 2008, so I'll |
| 8 |
try. |
| 9 |
>> Please post: |
| 10 |
>> - output of ip rule sh |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> # ip rule sh |
| 14 |
> 0: from all lookup local |
| 15 |
> 32766: from all lookup main |
| 16 |
> 32767: from all lookup default |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> # ip route sh table 0 |
| 19 |
> 192.168.19.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.19.95 |
| 20 |
> 195.75.145.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 195.75.145.122 |
| 21 |
> default via 195.75.145.1 dev lo scope link |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
These 3 should be in main. In addition, default must not go through dev lo. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
> local 195.75.145.0/24 dev lo table local proto kernel scope host src |
| 26 |
195.75.145.120 |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
This is also highly suspect: a subnet should be attached to an ethX dev, |
| 29 |
not dev lo. Except 127.0.0.0/8 |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> # ip route sh table 32766 |
| 32 |
> # ip route sh table 32767 |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> Both 32766 and 32767 are empty.... |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
It's normal for 32767 to be empty, but very irregular for main to be empty. |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
Rgds, |
Archives