Hi Vadim, SSVM does not know whether it is nated or not. We just add a default route via the public gateway that you provided while creating the zone. If that route is not there SSVM would not be able to download templates from external web servers.
Thanks, Sanjeev On Thu, Apr 23, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Vadim Kimlaychuk <[email protected] > wrote: > 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 > >
