В Птн, 18/08/2006 в 17:16 +0200, Pascal Hambourg пишет: > Hello, > > Pokotilenko Kostik a écrit : > > > > 1. There 3 servers and a router with 2 PPPoE connections (let call them: > > ppp0, ppp1). > > 2. There are several groups of Inet-clients to be served (Servers, > > Clients and Club). > > 3. The task is: > > - to route Club through the ppp1; > > - to Servers and Clients through ppp0; > [...] > > router # netstat -nr > > Kernel IP routing table > > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt > > Iface > > 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 > > eth0 > > a1.a2.a3.a4 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 U 0 0 0 > > ppp0 > > b1.b2.b3.b4 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 U 0 0 0 > > ppp1 > [...] > > router # ip rule ls > > 0: from all lookup local > > 32763: from 10.10.100.101/24 lookup Club > > 32764: from 10.10.100.100/24 lookup Clients > > There's something wrong with these two rules. 10.10.100.101/24 and > 10.10.100.100/24 are not valid subnets. And if the IP routing strips the > irrelevant least significant byte, they are actually identical subnets : > 10.10.100.0/24.
I'm sorry, this is typo while writing message. The correct subnets are 10.10.101.0/24 and 10.10.100.0/24. > > 32765: from 192.168.1.0/24 lookup Servers > > 32766: from all lookup main > > 32767: from all lookup default > > > > router # ip route ls table Clients > > default via a1.a2.a3.a4 dev ppp0 > > You should set an exception for eth0's address, else the router won't be > able to reach 192.168.1.0/24 with this source address. That's right. I've already added this one. > > router # ip route ls table Servers > > default via a1.a2.a3.a4 dev ppp0 > > > > router # ip route ls table Club > > default via b1.b2.b3.b4 dev ppp1 > > > > ======================================== > > > > So, to summarize, the is no default route in main routing table. Each > > group of clients is to be routed through its respective connection, and, > > when its connection is down it is not to be routed. > > > > This scheme works almost fine, 10.10.100.100/24 addresses are really > > being routed through ppp0, 10.10.100.101/24 through ppp1 and > > 192.168.1.0/24 (3 Servers) through ppp0. BUT the router itself > > (192.168.1.4) has no route to any host. > > Yes it has routes to some hosts : see the 'main' routing table. Did you > mean "no route to any host but 192.168.1.0 and the two PPP peers" ? That's right. > > I get "network is unreachable" > > to any connection attempt from 192.168.1.4. And I can't connect to this > > router from outside, because the packets have no route to be sent back. > > > > I thought that there is different routing politics for localhost and > > added default route to "local" table. 192.168.1.4 has started to have > > the route, but the rest of the scheme started to work incorrectly. > > Don't do that. The "local" routing table is intended only for special > routes such as localhost or broadcast routes. > > > So, the question is: how does the routing of packets comming from > > localhost is being accomplished? > > In the same way as the routing of forwarded packets. From "ip rule" > point of view, locally generated traffic is selected with "iif lo" (see > iproute manual). Be aware that when the local source address is not > explicitly specified by the sending application, none of your custom > rules will match, so the "main" table will be used. But it contains no > default route. # ip rule add dev lo table Servers Solved my problem! I've spent 3 day searching for the answer. I'll make more testing tomorrow. So, correct me if I'm wrong: even if the local sending application wouldn't explicitly specify source IP address it will in any way be put to "Servers" table because it is from "lo" interface(??). > By the way, in your setup I don't understand how the destinations > 10.10.100.100/24 and 10.10.100.101/24 are routed. That was a typo. Thanks alot. -- Покотиленко Костик <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
