I see, thanks. - Mark
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Dubbs Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 2:43 PM To: BLFS Support List Subject: Re: Bind and Multihomed Interfaces Mark A. Olbert wrote: > Thanks. I think I see what happened. Here's my routing table when things are > not working: > > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface > 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 > 66.159.230.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 > 66.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 > 0.0.0.0 66.159.230.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 > > > And here it is when it's working: > > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface > 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 > 66.159.230.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 > 0.0.0.0 66.159.230.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 > > > So, basically, when it was munged up any request to any network in 66.0.0.0 > got routed to 0.0.0.0...which means it went nowhere. Is that correct? Yes. Actually the problem is between lines 3 and 4. Sending to 66.anything except 66.159.230.0/24 will try to send the packet directly. It will arp for the MAC address of 66.anything and not get a reply. It will then return an error to the sender. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3419 (20080905) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3420 (20080905) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
