> Now where would the proper place be to put a route for load balancing like:
>
> ip route add default scope global nexthop via xx.yy.51.46 dev eth2 weight 3
> nexthop via aa.bb.166.2 dev eth3 weight 1
>
>
Hey Doug,
Congrats! Now that we have helped you, it is your turn to help us! :-D
Let u
So for those of you following this thread. This is what I ended up with
that seems to be working.
/etc/iproute2/rt_tables
#
# reserved values
#
255 local
254 main
253 default
0 unspec
#
# local
#
#1 inr.ruhep
1 Cable
2 T1
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/rule-eth2
# Create
Bob you are so right!
I made the mistake of not removing "ip rule add" and "ip route add" from
each of the lines.
Which caused the script, which wanted to add those itself, get confused.
Now I have removed those and it brings up my routes on reboot and network
restart.
>You will have to show th
Lorenzo Quatrini wrote:
> So does anyone have a clue on which is the syntax for creating complex routes
> and rules using route-* and rule-*?
>
the route- and rule- are invoked by ifup-routes (all this in
/etc/sysconfig/networking-scripts), and it appears they are read and
each line is appene
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Doug Coats wrote:
> Adding the routes and rules to the appropriate files in network-scripts did
> not work. It gave me a number of errors and did not create the rules after
> reboot or/and network restart.
>
>
You will have to show the file contents and the actu
Adding the routes and rules to the appropriate files in network-scripts did
not work. It gave me a number of errors and did not create the rules after
reboot or/and network restart.
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 11:12 AM, Chan Chung Hang Christopher <
christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk> wrote:
>
> >> in
>> in fact, upon some digging, it looks like you put RULES in
>> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/rule-ethX and ROUTES in
>> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route-ethX
>>
>> the lines in the rule-* file are run prefixed by `ip rule add` while the
>> lines in the route-* file are prefixed by `ip ro
John R Pierce ha scritto:
>
> i dunno, i would sort of assume the -local functions are for the
> localhost interface (/dev/lo), and the idea of having system specific
> config files in /sbin/ is somewhat abhorrant.
I agree!
>
> in fact, upon some digging, it looks like you put RULES in
> /etc
Lorenzo Quatrini wrote:
> More detail on this:
> digging a bit on the network-scripts I found that there are few checks
> and calls to /sbin/ifup-pre-local, /sbin/ifup-local,
> /sbin/ifdown-pre-local, /sbin/ifdown-local, so I guess that this is
> the "right" place to put ip routes and rules command
2009/7/2 John R Pierce :
>
> now, these commands are NOT persistent, and, AFAIK, RHEL has no
> provision for `ip route` or rule commands, so I end up sticking this
> stuff in /etc/rc.d/rc.local or something.
>
>
More detail on this:
digging a bit on the network-scripts I found that there are few ch
Doug Coats wrote:
> Christopher - you have been a great help!
>
> My internal network ip is 192.168.4.1 and I need it to access the
> aa.bb.166.2 interface or eth3. What would the rule look like that I
> need to add?
>
>
ip route add 192.168.4.0/24 (??? i don't know your subnet - guessing
Christopher - you have been a great help!
My internal network ip is 192.168.4.1 and I need it to access the
aa.bb.166.2 interface or eth3. What would the rule look like that I need to
add?
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 6:51 PM, Christopher Chan <
christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk> wrote:
>
> > As a
> As a follow up issue. The only thing that is not working properly is
> that I can not pull up my website that is hosted on this server from
> our private network.
>
> Do I need iproutes for my other two nics? I have never needed them
> before.
>
>
That is because you never redirected r
I was simply trying to follow the example in:
http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html
That is my introduction and main resource for what I was doing. If there is
other resorces that any could suggest beyond the man page I wold be
interested to understanding this better.
As a follo
Doug Coats wrote:
> I am ecstatically confused.
>
> After I entered the last two commands my routing is working the way that I
> need it to.
>
> ip rule add from 173.11.51.46 table Cable
> ip rule add from 67.152.166.2 table T1
>
> The problem is I don't know which actual commands worked. I had ju
luc...@lastdot.org ha scritto:
> On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Lorenzo
> Quatrini wrote:
>> John R Pierce ha scritto:
>>
>>> now, these commands are NOT persistent, and, AFAIK, RHEL has no
>>> provision for `ip route` or rule commands, so I end up sticking this
>>> stuff in /etc/rc.d/rc.local or
Doug Coats ha scritto:
> I am ecstatically confused.
>
> After I entered the last two commands my routing is working the way that
> I need it to.
>
> ip rule add from 173.11.51.46 table Cable
> ip rule add from 67.152.166.2 table T1
>
> The problem is I don't know which actual commands worked
Lorenzo Quatrini wrote:
> John R Pierce ha scritto:
>
>> now, these commands are NOT persistent, and, AFAIK, RHEL has no
>> provision for `ip route` or rule commands, so I end up sticking this
>> stuff in /etc/rc.d/rc.local or something.
>>
>
> I was facing the same problem some time ago... wha
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:05 AM, Lorenzo
Quatrini wrote:
> John R Pierce ha scritto:
>
>>
>> now, these commands are NOT persistent, and, AFAIK, RHEL has no
>> provision for `ip route` or rule commands, so I end up sticking this
>> stuff in /etc/rc.d/rc.local or something.
>>
>
> I was facing the s
John R Pierce ha scritto:
>
> now, these commands are NOT persistent, and, AFAIK, RHEL has no
> provision for `ip route` or rule commands, so I end up sticking this
> stuff in /etc/rc.d/rc.local or something.
>
I was facing the same problem some time ago... what is the right place to put
"ip
I am ecstatically confused.
After I entered the last two commands my routing is working the way that I
need it to.
ip rule add from 173.11.51.46 table Cable
ip rule add from 67.152.166.2 table T1
The problem is I don't know which actual commands worked. I had just
rebooted. The other ip comman
Doug Coats wrote:
> So if I run the following two commands the rules show up in the list.
>
> ip rule add from 173.11.51.46 table Cable
> ip rule add from 67.152.166.2 table T1
>
> # ip rule list
> 0: from all lookup 255
> 32764: from 67.152.166.2 lookup T1
> 32765: from 173.11.51.46 loo
Doug Coats wrote:
> So if I run the following two commands the rules show up in the list.
>
> ip rule add from 173.11.51.46 table Cable
> ip rule add from 67.152.166.2 table T1
>
> # ip rule list
> 0: from all lookup 255
> 32764: from 67.152.166.2 lookup T1
> 32765: from 173.11.51.46 loo
Doug Coats wrote:
> So if I run the following two commands the rules show up in the list.
>
> ip rule add from 173.11.51.46 table Cable
> ip rule add from 67.152.166.2 table T1
>
> # ip rule list
> 0: from all lookup 255
> 32764: from 67.152.166.2 lookup T1
> 32765: from 173.11.51.46 loo
So if I run the following two commands the rules show up in the list.
ip rule add from 173.11.51.46 table Cable
ip rule add from 67.152.166.2 table T1
# ip rule list
0: from all lookup 255
32764: from 67.152.166.2 lookup T1
32765: from 173.11.51.46 lookup Cable
32766: from all lookup main
Doug Coats wrote:
> I am convinced that my iproute2 tables are all messed upIn fact I
> found some errors in my initial post.
>
> # ip rule list
> 0: from all lookup 255
> 32766: from all lookup main
> 32767: from all lookup default
Boy, did we miss that...
>
> /etc/iproute2/rt_tab
Doug Coats wrote:
> I am not understanding somethings very fundamental to me
> troubleshooting this issue.
>
> How do I clear the iproute2's that I have created?
They are cleared by being deleted or a reboot takes place.
Try 'ip route help' and 'ip rule help'
>
> How do I tell if they are
I am convinced that my iproute2 tables are all messed upIn fact I found
some errors in my initial post.
# ip rule list
0: from all lookup 255
32766: from all lookup main
32767: from all lookup default
/etc/iproute2/rt_tables
#
# reserved values
#
255 local
254 main
253 defa
Doug Coats wrote:
> Thanks for your responce!
>
> If I open up Iptables to accept everything on eth3 and eth2 or turn it
> off all together I get the same results.
>
> I will have to look through your iproute2 commands to see how they
> match up to mine. Do you see anything different in mine
I am not understanding somethings very fundamental to me troubleshooting
this issue.
How do I clear the iproute2's that I have created?
How do I tell if they are in affect?
What should they look like when listed if they are configured properly?
Thanks for holding my hand in this!
__
Thanks for your responce!
If I open up Iptables to accept everything on eth3 and eth2 or turn it off
all together I get the same results.
I will have to look through your iproute2 commands to see how they match up
to mine. Do you see anything different in mine that would indicate the
issue?
On
Hello Doug,
Here are the iproute2 commands for a multigateway setup I did.
ip route add 220.232.217.72/29 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src
220.232.217.78 table pacific
ip route add 10.9.0.0/17 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src
10.9.1.101 table pacific
ip route add default via 220.232
I changed those two rules to no affect. I have also done the above
mentioned things. My tcpdump shows connections comming in on eth3 but there
is no outbound communication.
Example:
tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
listening on eth3, link-type EN10MB (E
>
> ip rule add from xx.yy.51.46 table Cable
> ip rule add from aa.bb.166.2 table T1
>
>
> Other people seem to be using this configuration successfully but I
> seem to be missing something important.
>
Change the above rules to:
ip rule add from xx.yy.51.46 to default lookup Cable
ip rule ad
Thanks for your responses. I have tried some of the configurations that you
have mentioned but not all of them. I will try the others tonight when the
server is less active. In the meantime I will read the links you sent.
Thanks again. This is starting to drive me crazy.
On Wed, Jul 1, 2009 a
Doug Coats schrieb:
> I have a server with 4 nics. Two are using different internet connections,
> both with static IP's, and two are connected to our private network.
>
> The two internet facing nics seem to be battling over the gateway
> designation. Which ever I designate as the gateway the o
On Wed, 1 Jul 2009, Doug Coats wrote:
I have a server with 4 nics. Two are using different internet connections,
both with static IP's, and two
are connected to our private network.
The two internet facing nics seem to be battling over the gateway designation.
Which ever I designate as
the
I have a server with 4 nics. Two are using different internet connections,
both with static IP's, and two are connected to our private network.
The two internet facing nics seem to be battling over the gateway
designation. Which ever I designate as the gateway the other stops
responding to incom
38 matches
Mail list logo
