Re: Weird routing issue
>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Loftis <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
Michael> netstat -rn output on the box (.7?) having issues.
# netstat -rn | grep '^192\.168\.0'
192.168.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 40 0 0 eth0
192.168.0.0 192.168.0.8 255.255.0.0 UG 40 0 0 eth0
0.0.0.0 220.127.116.11 0.0.0.0 UG 40 0 0 eth1
I believe the first one should get used in favour of others.
There are no other routes for 192.168.0.*
Obviously this was different when I was routing via 192.168.0.8.
Michael> sounds like you have a more specific route going on or
Not that I can see...
Michael> something similar. does .5 hear the ARP requests when .7
I can't check easily this aspect :-(. (No Linux computers on this end
of the network). It looks like this will be the next step...
Michael> makes them? if so, does it respond? is .5 and .7 set
Michael> with the CORRECT netmask on the(eth0?) interface in
The netmask looks good to me on the local computers:
# ip address show eth0
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,ALLMULTI,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100
link/ether 00:40:f4:2b:71:c6 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.0.7/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global eth0
inet 192.168.0.3/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global secondary eth0:1
# ip address show eth0
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100
link/ether 00:40:05:a3:65:5b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.0.8/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global eth0
inet 18.104.22.168/29 brd 22.214.171.124 scope global eth0:1
inet 126.96.36.199/29 brd 188.8.131.52 scope global eth0:2
inet 184.108.40.206/29 brd 220.127.116.11 scope global secondary eth0:3
inet 18.104.22.168/29 brd 22.214.171.124 scope global secondary eth0:4
I can't imagine the netmask being wrong on 192.168.0.5, but can't
check right now, either.
Hmmm... Actually it would have to be more complicated then that as it
seems to be sensitive to the Ethernet adaptor (or address), otherwise
it would work after changing the IP address. I had to also route via
the other system too.
For this theory to be correct, 192.168.0.5, 192.168.0.8 and
192.168.0.10, would have to be inside the netmask, but not
Hmmm... Now I try it, not even 192.168.0.10 works anymore, not even
under the conditions as before. I hate networks that change!
Brian May <email@example.com>