On Fri, 2010-02-19 at 09:43 +0100, j.halifax . wrote: > > ip rule list > ip rule list > 0: from all lookup local > 32766: from all lookup main > 32767: from all lookup default > ======================== > > ip route list table local > > ip route list table main > > ip route list table default > > ip route list table local > local 195.39.130.92 dev eth0 proto kernel scope host src 195.39.130.92 > broadcast 127.255.255.255 dev lo proto kernel scope link src 127.0.0.1 > local 192.168.180.100 dev eth3 proto kernel scope host src 192.168.180.100 > broadcast 10.255.250.255 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 10.255.250.37 > broadcast 192.168.180.0 dev eth3 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.180.100 > broadcast 195.39.130.255 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 195.39.130.92 > broadcast 10.255.250.0 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 10.255.250.37 > broadcast 192.168.180.255 dev eth3 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.180.100 > broadcast 127.0.0.0 dev lo proto kernel scope link src 127.0.0.1 > broadcast 195.39.130.0 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 195.39.130.92 > local 10.255.250.37 dev eth2 proto kernel scope host src 10.255.250.37 > local 127.0.0.1 dev lo proto kernel scope host src 127.0.0.1 > local 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo proto kernel scope host src 127.0.0.1 > > ip route list table main > 192.168.180.0/24 dev eth3 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.180.100 > 10.200.1.0/24 via 10.255.250.250 dev eth2 > 195.39.130.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 195.39.130.92 > 10.1.1.0/24 via 10.255.250.250 dev eth2 > 10.201.1.0/24 via 10.255.250.250 dev eth2 > 172.17.1.0/24 via 192.168.180.100 dev eth3 > 10.255.250.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 10.255.250.37 > 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth0 scope link metric 1003 > 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth2 scope link metric 1004 > 169.254.0.0/16 dev eth3 scope link metric 1005 > 192.168.0.0/16 via 192.168.180.100 dev eth3 > default via 195.39.130.89 dev eth0 > > ip route list table default > My comment: Table is empty > ====================== > > I can't see any fault. Packets to 172.17.1.50 should match > 172.17.1.0/24 via 192.168.180.100 dev eth3 > and go to eth3. But it doesn't and goes by default to eth0 > (Internet) > > Don't you know any way of debugging routing decisions > (to see why do packets match or not)? > > Thank you again. :) > jh > I can't see any fault either. There is "ip route get" which will tell how the kernel should route a packet given a destination. Please do "man ip" and search for the string, "ip route get - get" The man page says this command causes the kernel to pretend to send a packet along the path without actually sending the packet. I'd suggest a command like: ip route get 172.17.1.50 from 10.255.250.38 iif eth2 I'm not optimistic this command will give us a hint what is happening. I'm at the point of wanting to modify kernel source code to debug it. This is NOT a path I recommend unless you have a lab environment and are comfortable doing this sort of thing. I certainly wouldn't do this on a production system. I'd do this only on a system I'm willing to lose all data on the disk. I'm sorry. I'm stumped. I've run out of ideas and suggestions. Have you considered asking people on IRC? Please see the following URL for information: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate#IRC To use IRC and ask questions on the #fedora channel, you will need an IRC client, and will need to register a nickname with the Nickserv, freenode.net. I'd suggest asking questions on the #fedora channel. Perhaps someone, there, will have more ideas and suggestions. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
