On Sep 26, 2016, at 1:16 PM, Armin Tüting <armin.tuet...@tueting-online.com> wrote:
>>> ip route >>> default via 192.168.60.1 dev eth0 metric 2 >>> 192.168.10.0/24 via 192.168.40.1 dev eth1 metric 1 >>> 192.168.40.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src >>> 192.168.40.6 >>> 192.168.50.0/24 via 192.168.40.1 dev eth1 metric 1 >>> 192.168.60.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src >>> 192.168.60.6 >>> >>> Armin. >> >> Your network CIDR's look fine. >> >> Where are the "metric 1" routes coming from ?: >> -- >> 192.168.10.0/24 via 192.168.40.1 dev eth1 metric 1 >> 192.168.50.0/24 via 192.168.40.1 dev eth1 metric 1 >> -- >> are you adding those manually ? > Yes! I've added them through /mnt/kd/rc.elocal! They're static routes > off eth1! > >> Where are the 192.168.10.0/24 and 192.168.50.0/24 networks in your >> configuration ? > I've added them through /mnt/kd/rc.elocal OK, we are at the point where we need to draw a picture, I'll start, edit anything I got wrong: 192.168.60.6/24 - eth0 External - APU1 - LAN eth1 - 192.168.40.6/24 How do the 192.168.10.0/24 and 192.168.50.0/24 networks fit in ? >> Also this looks odd with the "metric 2" added, are you doing that?: > Yup! I don't understand why you need to do that. >> -- >> default via 192.168.60.1 dev eth0 metric 2 >> -- >> >> If your SSH client is from either the 192.168.10.0/24 or >> 192.168.50.0/24 network external to eth0 then those added routes are >> messing things up. > That's the case! Sorry, I'm not getting the point :( A picture as above will help. > >> Just for comparison, here is a working test box with a static >> external interface eth0 (10.10.50.62) and LAN interfaces eth1, >> eth1.10 and eth1.50 >> -- ip route -- >> default via 10.10.50.1 dev eth0 >> 10.10.50.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.10.50.62 >> 192.168.101.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src >> 192.168.101.1 >> 192.168.110.0/24 dev eth1.10 proto kernel scope link src >> 192.168.110.1 >> 192.168.202.0/24 dev eth1.50 proto kernel scope link src >> 192.168.202.1 >> -- > This configuration reflects one subnet on eth0 and three subnets > connected to eth1 - isn't it? For my test box, eth0 is the external interface (as per the default route). For eth1, one untagged interface and two VLAN's. 3 separate networks going to a web managed VLAN switch. Best practice, only have one network per interface, be it physical or VLAN, as I have on my test box. > I'm only having one subnet on eth0 and eth1 connected. The subnet > x.10/24 and x.60/24 are reachable through eth1 with a GW external to > eth1. I'm confused, really need a picture of your network layout. Lonnie PS, I find this more fun than crossword puzzles :-) Somehow network routing puzzles have not caught on. :-) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Astlinux-users mailing list Astlinux-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/astlinux-users Donations to support AstLinux are graciously accepted via PayPal to pay...@krisk.org.
