On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Blars Blarson wrote: > In article <[🔎] 20021027193153.GL11546@valiant.sbg.palfrader.org> > weasel@debian.org writes: > >Such a setup is quite possible and if you come to think about it, it's > >not much different from having say 192.168.25.0/24 on one side and > >0.0.0.0/0 on the other. One is a real subset of the other. > > >Therefore the routing table is checked in the order of longest prefix > >first. Splitting the routes is not necessary (and would not help). > > Routing IS the problem. Routes with a gateway don't effect arp, so > the 0.0.0.0/0 route isn't a problem. > > Arp_filter doesn't work for you because there IS a valid route to > 10.200.118.1 on eth1. Even if I use other networks I have the same result: eg: | 172.22.118.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 | 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 | 0.0.0.0 10.0.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 arps from 172.22.118.2 for 10.2.2.20 are ansered on eth0: 09:39:54.965970 arp who-has 10.2.2.20 tell 172.22.118.2 09:39:54.966004 arp reply 10.2.2.20 is-at 0:4:76:94:57:62 yours, peter -- PGP signed and encrypted | .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** messages preferred. | : :' : The universal | `. `' Operating System http://www.palfrader.org/ | `- http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
pgpLJy6hZfBte.pgp
Description: PGP signature