[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SIOCDELRT, or: proper syntax to delete default route for an interface?

On 1/22/2015 3:55 PM, Tom Roche wrote:

summary:

me@client:~$ sudo route del default ppp0
SIOCDELRT: No such process
me@client:~$ sudo route del default dev ppp0
SIOCDELRT: No such process
me@client:~$ sudo route del -net default dev ppp0
SIOCDELRT: No such process
me@client:~$ sudo route del -net default gw 10.144.15.234 dev ppp0
SIOCDELRT: No such process
me@client:~$ sudo route del -net default netmask 128.0.0.0 gw 10.144.15.234 dev ppp0
SIOCDELRT: No such process
me@client:~$ sudo route del -net default gw 0.0.0.0 dev ppp0
SIOCDELRT: No such process
me@client:~$ sudo route del -net default netmask 255.255.255.255 gw 0.0.0.0 dev ppp0
SIOCDELRT: No such process

details:

I'm trying to debug a VPN-related misconfiguration on a laptop (call it "the client") which is running

me@client:~$ cat /etc/debian_version
jessie/sid
me@client:~$ uname -rv
3.11-2-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.11.8-1 (2013-11-13)
me@client:~$ gcc --version | head -n 1
gcc (Debian 4.8.2-1) 4.8.2
me@client:~$ sudo route --version
[sudo] password for tlroche:
net-tools 1.60
route 1.98 (2001-04-15)
+NEW_ADDRT +RTF_IRTT +RTF_REJECT +I18N
AF: (inet) +UNIX +INET +INET6 +IPX +AX25 +NETROM +X25 +ATALK +ECONET +ROSE
HW:  +ETHER +ARC +SLIP +PPP +TUNNEL -TR +AX25 +NETROM +X25 +FR +ROSE +ASH +SIT +FDDI +HIPPI +HDLC/LAPB +EUI64

On this client, I have started an OpenVPN client (after previously starting an OpenVPN server in the cloud), logged into a remote-access website, and used that site's web UI to connect to an F5 SSL VPN (which I want to tunnel through the OpenVPN). (More details on the design goal here[1] and the problem configuration here[2].) This produces

me@client:~$ date ; sudo ifconfig
Thu Jan 22 11:48:43 EST 2015
eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr<omitted/>
           inet addr:192.168.1.142  Bcast:192.168.1.255  Mask:255.255.255.0
           inet6 addr:<omitted/>
           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
           RX packets:10224715 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
           TX packets:6011530 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
           collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000
           RX bytes:12886933501 (12.0 GiB)  TX bytes:677423768 (646.0 MiB)
           Interrupt:20 Memory:f2600000-f2620000

lo        Link encap:Local Loopback
           inet addr:127.0.0.1  Mask:255.0.0.0
           inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host
           UP LOOPBACK RUNNING  MTU:65536  Metric:1
           RX packets:497 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
           TX packets:497 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
           collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
           RX bytes:51273 (50.0 KiB)  TX bytes:51273 (50.0 KiB)

# Note I get slightly different IP#s for interface=ppp0 each time I run this scenario.

ppp0      Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol
           inet addr:10.144.15.234  P-t-P:10.144.0.1  Mask:255.255.255.255
           UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
           RX packets:6 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
           TX packets:18 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
           collisions:0 txqueuelen:3
           RX bytes:56 (56.0 B)  TX bytes:2418 (2.3 KiB)

tun0      Link encap:UNSPEC  HWaddr 00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00-00
           inet addr:10.8.0.6  P-t-P:10.8.0.5  Mask:255.255.255.255
           UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
           RX packets:4 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
           TX packets:4 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
           collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
           RX bytes:304 (304.0 B)  TX bytes:304 (304.0 B)

me@client:~$ date ; sudo route -n
Thu Jan 22 11:48:48 EST 2015
Kernel IP routing table
Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags Metric Ref    Use Iface
0.0.0.0         10.144.15.100   128.0.0.0       UG    1      0        0 ppp0
0.0.0.0         192.168.1.1     0.0.0.0         UG    0      0        0 eth0
10.144.0.1      0.0.0.0         255.255.255.255 UH    0      0        0 ppp0
128.0.0.0       10.144.15.100   128.0.0.0       UG    1      0        0 ppp0
134.67.15.30    10.8.0.5        255.255.255.255 UGH   1      0        0 tun0

Once at that point, I'm directed[3] (IIUC) to delete the default route being set by the F5VPN, for debugging. Furthermore, I need to do this quickly, because (and this is the problem with the current misconfiguration) the misconfiguration causes the OpenVPN tunnel to fail quickly, which breaks the situation I want to debug.

Hence it is quite infuriating that I cannot seem to find the correct `route` syntax to do this:

me@client:~$ sudo route del default ppp0
SIOCDELRT: No such process

me@client:~$ sudo route del default dev ppp0
SIOCDELRT: No such process

me@client:~$ sudo route del -net default dev ppp0
SIOCDELRT: No such process

me@client:~$ sudo route del -net default gw 10.144.15.234 dev ppp0
SIOCDELRT: No such process

me@client:~$ sudo route del -net default netmask 128.0.0.0 gw 10.144.15.234 dev ppp0
SIOCDELRT: No such process

me@client:~$ sudo route del -net default gw 0.0.0.0 dev ppp0
SIOCDELRT: No such process

me@client:~$ sudo route del -net default netmask 255.255.255.255 gw 0.0.0.0 dev ppp0
SIOCDELRT: No such process

`info route` is not helping, nor are my websearches finding helpful doc. What am I doing wrong?

TIA, Tom Roche<Tom_Roche@pobox.com>

[1]: https://bitbucket.org/tlroche/linode_jumpbox_config/wiki/Home#rst-header-intended-solution
[2]: https://bitbucket.org/tlroche/linode_jumpbox_config/wiki/Home#rst-header-networking-problem
[3]: https://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2015/01/msg00779.html
Try it with 0.0.0.0 instead of default. I didn't notice that the netmask was 128.0.0.0 rather than 0.0.0.0. Not sure why it would do that or if that has some kind of special meaning.
Reply to: