I'm going to highlight anomalous routes, those that have no business in the local table.
On Nov 7, 2011 9:14 PM, "Massimiliano Ziccardi" < massimiliano.zicca...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I've been deploying multi-interface Linux gateways since 2008, so I'll try. >> Please post: >> - output of ip rule sh > > > # ip rule sh > 0: from all lookup local > 32766: from all lookup main > 32767: from all lookup default > > # ip route sh table 0 > 192.168.19.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.19.95 > 195.75.145.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 195.75.145.122 > default via 195.75.145.1 dev lo scope link These 3 should be in main. In addition, default must not go through dev lo. > local 195.75.145.0/24 dev lo table local proto kernel scope host src 195.75.145.120 This is also highly suspect: a subnet should be attached to an ethX dev, not dev lo. Except 127.0.0.0/8 > # ip route sh table 32766 > # ip route sh table 32767 > > Both 32766 and 32767 are empty.... > It's normal for 32767 to be empty, but very irregular for main to be empty. Rgds,
