Well, it probably is working. I'm probably just misunderstanding
something.
Given routing rules that look like this:
0: from all lookup local
1: from all fwmark 0x40 lookup CGCO
10001: from all fwmark 0x80 lookup IGS
2: from 67.193.45.68 lookup CGCO
20256: from 66.11.173.224
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> Well, it probably is working. I'm probably just misunderstanding
> something.
>
> Given routing rules that look like this:
>
> 0: from all lookup local
> 1: from all fwmark 0x40 lookup CGCO
> 10001: from all fwmark 0x80 lookup IGS
> 2: from 67.193.45.
On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 18:22 -0600, Jerry Vonau wrote:
> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>
> > and given the CGCO routing table:
> >
> > 10.8.0.2 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.8.0.1
> > 67.193.45.68 dev eth0.1 scope link
> > 192.168.200.1 dev ppp0 proto kernel scope link src 66.11.173
Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 18:22 -0600, Jerry Vonau wrote:
>> Brian J. Murrell wrote:
>>
>>> and given the CGCO routing table:
>>>
>>> 10.8.0.2 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.8.0.1
>>> 67.193.45.68 dev eth0.1 scope link
>>> 192.168.200.1 dev ppp0 proto kernel
On Fri, 2007-12-28 at 17:49 -0500, Brian J. Murrell wrote:
> Well, it probably is working. I'm probably just misunderstanding
> something.
The crux of this problem was in fact that because I have multiple
Internet interfaces and thus multiple addresses, the application
(OpenVPN) was choosing a di
