On Wed, Mar 16, 2005 at 07:10:37PM +0100, Martin Pauly wrote:
> Hello Herbert,
> 
> thanks for your reply, we managed to track down things a bit further:
> 
> I wrote:
> > The ifconfig call inside /sbin/vserver introduces another route on eth1:
> > 
> > master22:/etc/vservers# ip route sh
> > 137.248.9.0/27 dev eth0��proto�kernel��scope�link��src�137.248.9.13
> [other routes]
> 
> > 4. Now I adjust the routing tables:
> > master22:/etc/vservers# ip route del 137.248.9.0/27 dev eth0
> > master22:/etc/vservers# ip route add 137.248.9.0/27 dev eth0 src 
> > 137.248.9.13 table 2
> > master22:/etc/vservers# ip route add default dev eth0 via 137.248.9.30 src
> > 137.248.9.13 table 2
> > RTNETLINK answers: Network is unreachable
> 
> There seems to be an issue with the additional route introduced by ifconfig.
> If I simply leave it in place for the moment, build the second table, and
> remove it _afterwards_, things seem to be fine. 
> Looks weird to me, though ...

check with iproute2's 'ip' utility (ip addr ls, ip route ls, ...)
to get a better 'understanding' what the legacy ifconfig
utility does with interfaces, addresses and routes ...

> BTW: I learned from your examples that chbind is useful for testing such 
> network stuff, but I also learned that ping happily breaks out of its IP jail:
> 
> master22:~# chbind --ip 137.248.9.13 ping -R -c 1 137.248.3.34

yeah, that's what the -I option is for (at least for ping)

> ipv4root is now 137.248.9.13
> PING 137.248.3.34 (137.248.3.34) 56(124) bytes of data.
> 64 bytes from 137.248.3.34: icmp_seq=1 ttl=254 time=1.35 ms
> NOP
> RR:     192.168.1.18
>         137.248.3.250
>         137.248.3.34
>         137.248.1.126
>         192.168.1.18
> 
> --- 137.248.3.34 ping statistics ---
> 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time 0ms
> rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 1.359/1.359/1.359/0.000 ms
> 
> I verified this on the target machine (a solaris box).
> So raw sockets seem to be a different story altogether.

well, that's not really surprising, as some 'ping' tools 
use raw sockets to transmit a custom created packet, which 
of course can be _any_ packet (that's the purpose of raw
sockets after all, and that's why linux-vserver do not
allow to use raw sockets by default)

best,
Herbert

> Greetz, Martin
> 
> -- 
>   Dr. Martin Pauly     Fax:    49-6421-28-26994
>   HRZ Univ. Marburg    Phone:  49-6421-28-23527
>   Hans-Meerwein-Str.   E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>   D-35032 Marburg
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Vserver mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
_______________________________________________
Vserver mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver

Reply via email to