Hi,
When I got several networks on my management server I have noticed,
that SSVM routing table is weird. It works so far, but I don’t understand why
public traffic is routed through local management interface (and NATed) when it
can be sent directly to eth2 ? Isn’t it too complicated ?
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface
0.0.0.0 194.2.2.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth2
169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
172.16.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth3
172.16.0.1 172.17.0.1 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth1
172.17.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
194.2.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.128 U 0 0 0 eth2
194.2.2.0 172.17.0.1 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1
194.2.2.3 172.17.0.1 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth1
Storage network here is 172.16.0.0, management – 172.17.0.0 and public –
194.2.2.0 (all class C). Management server itself – 194.2.2.3
This is not a problem, I am just curious about unnecessary
complexity. From my point of view this layout is far from being optimal and
contains excess routes
Thank you,
Vadim
