Ok, I'm starting to grok this now, especially with your description as to the why's of your network configuration. I also think I know "why" this is happening, though even the why isn't making much sense. When your outbound route is chosen for locally generated traffic, the Linux kernel doesn't know your source IP yet, so none of your ip rules are being analyzed. As you had stated earlier, main is the table that will be queried. Based upon what I found online last week, the order of your routes should be the only thing that matters since both routes are identical, but that is obviously not the case on deviant. I can't explain this behaviour. It's not acting as it should. That said, I know a simple solution. Set different priority values on the default routes. If you mark eth0 as the higher priority, the kernel *should* select the desired route. You can also use fwmark, but that would be a lot more complicated. Joel Gerber Network Specialist Network Operations Eastlink E: Joel.Gerber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx T: 519.786.1241 -----Original Message----- From: Ole Craig [mailto:olc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: May-16-14 4:28 PM To: Joel Gerber Cc: lucas castro; lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: iproute2 does not select 1st default route in table? I understand your curiosity. The device in question is a managed security appliance with a design requirement to use separate interfaces for management traffic vice application traffic. The developers were afraid of iptables and fwmark^W^W^W^W^Win a hurry and shipped a device configurator method that classifies management traffic solely by remote IP ("What's the IP of your XXXX server? OK, we'll add a static eth0 route for that IP since XXXX is a management protocol") and defaults everything else to eth1.* Many of our customers don't have a separate management network in their DMZ so they plug us in side-by-side on a single subnet. Out of roughly 75 customer appliances deployed this way (some hardware, some virtualized) Deviant here is the only one that routes out eth0 instead of eth1. Joel asked for some RPDB context: > You have some ip rules listed, right? Could you give me `ip rule ls` > as well as `ip route ls table x` where x is all tables referenced by > `ip rule ls` except for default and local? [root@dvnt ~]# ip rule ls | sanize 0: from all lookup 255 10: from all lookup bootstrap 32736: from all to 128.119.40.1 lookup mgtroutes 32737: from all to 192.168.126.228 lookup mgtroutes 32738: from all to 192.168.76.232 lookup mgtroutes 32739: from all to 192.168.90.112 lookup mgtroutes 32740: from all to 192.168.61.112 lookup mgtroutes 32741: from all to 192.168.76.232 lookup mgtroutes 32742: from all to 192.168.61.112 lookup mgtroutes 32743: from all to 192.168.34.35 lookup mgtroutes 32744: from all to 192.168.61.112 lookup defroutes 32745: from all to 192.168.134.47 lookup mgtroutes 32746: from all to 192.168.127.68 lookup mgtroutes 32747: from all to 192.168.66.6 lookup mgtroutes 32748: from all to 192.168.126.228 lookup mgtroutes 32749: from all to 192.168.127.68 lookup mgtroutes 32750: from all to 192.168.134.41 lookup mgtroutes 32751: from all to 192.168.134.41 lookup mgtroutes 32752: from all to 192.168.76.232 lookup mgtroutes 32753: from all to 107.22.16.175 lookup mgtroutes 32754: from all to 128.119.41.69 lookup mgtroutes 32755: from 192.168.72.124 lookup mgtroutes 32756: from 192.168.72.100 lookup defroutes 32757: from 192.168.72.0/24 to 192.168.72.0/24 lookup mgtroutes 32758: from all to 192.168.72.0/24 lookup defroutes 32759: from 192.168.72.0/24 lookup defroutes 32760: from 192.168.72.0/24 lookup mgtroutes 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup default [root@dvnt ~]# for tbl in bootstrap mgtroutes defroutes main; do echo $tbl && ip route ls table $tbl ; done bootstrap 172.16.128.70 via 192.168.72.1 dev eth0 src 192.168.72.124 128.119.41.69 via 192.168.72.1 dev eth0 src 192.168.72.124 192.168.1.10 via 192.168.72.1 dev eth0 src 192.168.72.124 mgtroutes 192.168.72.0/24 dev eth0 scope link src 192.168.72.124 default via 192.168.72.1 dev eth0 src 192.168.72.124 defroutes 192.168.72.0/24 dev eth1 scope link src 192.168.72.100 default via 192.168.72.1 dev eth1 src 192.168.72.100 main 10.1.1.1 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.1.1.7 10.250.32.1 via 10.1.1.1 dev tun0 10.250.10.0/24 via 10.1.1.1 dev tun0 192.168.72.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.72.124 192.168.72.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.72.100 default via 192.168.72.1 dev eth1 default via 192.168.72.1 dev eth0 [root@dvnt ~]# Thanks, Ole * I have an iceboxed dev story to refactor the implementation using fwmark on a protocol/target IP match instead of per-IP static routes, but that story's been waiting for a casus belli. Maybe this will suffice... On Fri, 2014-05-16 at 08:33 -0300, Joel Gerber wrote: > It could be used for “redundancy”, but a far better option is bonded > interfaces. I’m honestly not sure why Ole has the network > configuration in place that he does, not that that means that it’s not > a workable configuration. > > > > Joel Gerber > Network Administrator > Network Operations > Eastlink > E: Joel.Gerber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx T: 519.786.1241 > > > > From: lucas castro [mailto:lucascastroborges@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: May-15-14 9:05 PM > To: Joel Gerber > Cc: Ole Craig; lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: iproute2 does not select 1st default route in table? > > > > > Is that two interface in the same network and subnet for High > Available ? > > > I've never tried two interface in the same network/subnet into two > different interface. > > > > > On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 4:25 PM, Joel Gerber > <Joel.Gerber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'm honestly stumped right now. Your route cache is getting populated > with a route that your ip route show match command disagrees with. > Your deviant box is quite deviant. > > You have some ip rules listed, right? Could you give me `ip rule ls` > as well as `ip route ls table x` where x is all tables referenced by > `ip rule ls` except for default and local? > > > Joel Gerber > Network Specialist > Network Operations > Eastlink > E: Joel.Gerber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx T: 519.786.1241 > -----Original Message----- > From: Ole Craig [mailto:olc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: May-13-14 7:35 PM > To: Anton Danilov > Cc: Joel Gerber; lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: iproute2 does not select 1st default route in table? > > Anton, Joel - > Here's the output of ip route show cache 8.8.8.8, ip route show > match 8.8.8.8, and ip route get 8.8.8.8 > > ...on Deviant: > [root@dvnt ~]# ip route show cache 8.8.8.8 > 8.8.8.8 via 192.168.72.1 dev eth0 src 192.168.72.124 > cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64 > 8.8.8.8 from 192.168.72.124 via 192.168.72.1 dev eth0 > cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64 > [root@dvnt ~]# ip route show match 8.8.8.8 > default via 192.168.72.1 dev eth1 > default via 192.168.72.1 dev eth0 > [root@dvnt ~]# ip route get 8.8.8.8 > 8.8.8.8 via 192.168.72.1 dev eth0 src 192.168.72.124 > cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64 > > ...on Norm: > [root@norm ~]# ip route show cache 8.8.8.8 > 8.8.8.8 via 192.168.72.1 dev eth1 src 192.168.72.99 > cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64 > 8.8.8.8 from 192.168.72.99 via 192.168.72.1 dev eth1 > cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64 > [root@norm ~]# ip route show match 8.8.8.8 > default via 192.168.72.1 dev eth1 > default via 192.168.72.1 dev eth0 > [root@norm ~]# ip route get 8.8.8.8 > 8.8.8.8 via 192.168.72.1 dev eth1 src 192.168.72.99 > cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64 > > > Thanks, > Ole > > On Tue, 2014-05-13 at 00:05 +0400, Anton Danilov wrote: > > Hi, Joel. > > Please use 'ip route get' and 'ip route show match' commands for > > troubleshooting of route selection. > > Some examples: > > ip route get <dst> from <src> iif <lan-iface> - show route for > transit > > packets (not local-originated). > > ip route show match <prefix> - show all mathed routes (with > different > > prefix length). > > > > 2014-05-12 15:52 GMT+04:00 Joel Gerber > <Joel.Gerber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > > > I'm getting confused now. I did some online reading, and I've > found the following: > > > > > > If several routes match the packet, the following pruning rules > are used to select the best one: > > > > > > 1. The longest matching prefix is selected; all shorter ones > are dropped. > > > 2. If the TOS of some route with the longest prefix is equal to > the TOS of the packet, routes with different TOS are dropped. > > > 3. If no exact TOS match is found and routes with TOS=0 exist, > the rest of the routes are pruned. Otherwise the route lookup fails. > > > 4. If several routes remain after steps 1-3 have been tried, > then routes with the best preference value are selected. > > > 5. If several routes still exist, then the first of them is > selected. > > > > > > > http://www.softpanorama.org/Net/Internet_layer/Routing/policy_routing.shtml > > > > > > I'm having a hard time finding anything more official that states > this, and without looking at the kernel source code I can't be 100% > certain, but it seems that the first route listed should be selected, > when there are multiple matches. > > > > > > Here's something else to try, run the command "ip route show > cache" and paste the contents here. As the cache is the first thing > queried before looking at your routing list, I'm curious to see what > it shows. > > > > > > Joel Gerber > > > Network Specialist > > > Network Operations > > > Eastlink > > > E: Joel.Gerber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx T: 519.786.1241 > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Ole Craig [mailto:olc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > > Sent: May-09-14 4:14 PM > > > To: Joel Gerber > > > Cc: lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Subject: Re: iproute2 does not select 1st default route in table? > > > > > > Joel, et al - > > > TL;DR: behavior at issue differs between 2 boxes which are > 1 IP > > > address apart with identical hw/sw loads; same kernel; > interface > > > numbering unchanged after kernel probing. What gives? What > am I > > > missing? > > > > > > (Apologies for the delayed response, life around here has been > frantic > > > and this has been sitting around half-composed in my mail client.) > > > > > > Details: > > > Ok, I have two dual-interface boxes sitting next to each other > on > > > this customer's network. The first box is the one we've been > discussing, > > > I'll call him "Deviant" from now on. The second box (hereinafter > "Norm") > > > is acting just like the rest of the appliances in our fleet, i.e. > > > routing out eth1 by default. Hoping that comparing these two > (which are > > > identical WRT both hardware and software config*) can lead to a > more > > > informed/precise conclusion as to what's causing them to behave > > > differently (and maybe some ideas for re-norming Deviant; > arbitrary > > > routing is Not My Kink.:) > > > > > > kernel insertion order on Deviant: > > > [root@dvnt ~]# uname -a > > > Linux dvnt.example.com 2.6.18-348.4.1.el5 #1 SMP Tue Apr > 16 15:40:06 EDT 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > [root@dvnt ~]# dmesg | egrep 'eth.: \(' > > > igb 0000:01:00.0: eth0: (PCIe:2.5Gb/s:Width x4) > > > 00:25:90:30:28:6c > > > igb 0000:01:00.1: eth1: (PCIe:2.5Gb/s:Width x4) > > > 00:25:90:30:28:6d > > > device<-->address mapping on Deviant: > > > [root@dvnt ~]# ip link show > > > 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue > > > link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 > > > 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc > > > pfifo_fast qlen 1000 > > > link/ether 00:25:90:30:28:6c brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > > > 3: eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc > > > pfifo_fast qlen 1000 > > > link/ether 00:25:90:30:28:6d brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > > > Link status on Deviant: > > > [root@dvnt ~]# for i in 0 1; do echo -n "eth$i: "; ethtool > eth$i | grep Link; done > > > eth0: Link detected: yes > > > eth1: Link detected: yes > > > > > > > > > kernel insertion order on Norm: > > > [root@norm ~]# uname -a > > > Linux norm.example.com 2.6.18-348.4.1.el5 #1 SMP Tue Apr > 16 15:40:06 EDT 2013 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > [root@norm ~]# dmesg | egrep 'eth.: \(' > > > igb 0000:01:00.0: eth0: (PCIe:2.5Gb/s:Width x4) > 00:25:90:30:2c:f8 > > > igb 0000:01:00.1: eth1: (PCIe:2.5Gb/s:Width x4) > 00:25:90:30:2c:f9 > > > device<-->address map on Norm: > > > [root@norm ~]# ip link show > > > 1: lo: <LOOPBACK,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue > > > link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 > > > 2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc > pfifo_fast qlen 1000 > > > link/ether 00:25:90:30:2c:f8 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > > > 3: eth1: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP,LOWER_UP> mtu 1500 qdisc > pfifo_fast qlen 1000 > > > link/ether 00:25:90:30:2c:f9 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff > > > Link status on Norm: > > > [root@norm ~]# for i in 0 1; do echo -n "eth$i: "; ethtool > eth$i | grep Link; done > > > eth0: Link detected: yes > > > eth1: Link detected: yes > > > > > > > > > So, we can see that in both cases the device ordering is unchanged > from > > > that which was discovered at boot by the kernel, and that eth0 was > > > probed first. > > > > > > And here again for posterity is the active routing table and > results of > > > "ip route get" on each machine: > > > > > > Deviant: > > > [root@dvnt ~]# ip route show table main > > > 10.1.1.1 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.1.1.7 > > > 10.250.32.1 via 10.1.1.1 dev tun0 > > > 10.250.10.0/24 via 10.1.1.1 dev tun0 > > > 192.168.72.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src > 192.168.72.124 > > > 192.168.72.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src > 192.168.72.100 > > > default via 192.168.72.1 dev eth1 > > > default via 192.168.72.1 dev eth0 > > > [root@dvnt ~]# ip route get 8.8.8.8 | sanize > > > 8.8.8.8 via 192.168.72.1 dev eth0 src 192.168.72.124 > > > cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64 > > > > > > Norm: > > > [root@norm ~]# ip route show table main > > > 10.1.1.1 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src 10.1.1.45 > > > 10.250.32.1 via 10.1.1.1 dev tun0 > > > 10.250.10.0/24 via 10.1.1.1 dev tun0 > > > 192.168.72.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src > 192.168.72.123 > > > 192.168.72.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src > 192.168.72.99 > > > default via 192.168.72.1 dev eth1 > > > default via 192.168.72.1 dev eth0 > > > [root@norm ~]# ip route get 8.8.8.8 > > > 8.8.8.8 via 192.168.72.1 dev eth1 src 192.168.72.99 > > > cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64 > > > > > > > > > Any thoughts as to what else might be going on? > > > > > > Ole > > > > > > *"identical[...]hw/sw config" -- granted there are differences in > > > application configuration (layers 5-7) but nothing that should > come > > > close to affecting routing. > > > -- > > > Ole Craig <olc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > On Wed, 2014-04-16 at 16:51 -0300, Joel Gerber wrote: > > >> Are you running different versions of the Linux kernel? > > >> > > >> I'm quite certain that the order the routes are added should have > no weight on this matter. There is also another possibility. You might > be renaming the interfaces differently that the order that they are > loaded into the kernel as. Whichever interface was loaded first will > have the smaller internal number, which is the one that would get > selected first. > > >> > > >> Joel Gerber > > >> Network Specialist > > >> Network Operations > > >> Eastlink > > >> E: Joel.Gerber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx T: 519.786.1241 > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: Ole Craig [mailto:olc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] > > >> Sent: April-16-14 11:08 AM > > >> To: Joel Gerber > > >> Cc: lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > >> Subject: RE: iproute2 does not select 1st default route in table? > > >> > > >> Hello Joel, > > >> There must be something else in play; we manage hundreds of other > similar appliances and this is the only one that's exhibiting this > behavior. ("similar" == "same hardware spec, same software spec, only > the IPs are different" -- and yes, most of them have eth0 and eth1 > sharing a subnet and gw, and eth1 is always the default route for > packets not built with a specific source IP.) > > >> > > >> Thanks, > > >> Ole > > >> > > >> Joel Gerber <Joel.Gerber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> >Hello Ole; > > >> > > > >> >If you have multiple routes set with the same metric to the same > destination, by default, the Linux kernel will choose the lowest > numbered interface to use. This would be why eth0 is being hit every > time. It has nothing to do with your ip rule definitions. If you > wanted to prefer eth1, add a larger metric flag to the eth0 route, > which will cause eth1 to be used instead. Then, only in the event that > eth1 is link-down, will eth0 be used. > > >> > > > >> >You could also setup ECMP (Equal Cost Multi Path) which would > allow you to load-balance traffic across both interfaces. To do this, > add the equalize option to your 2 default routes when adding them. You > might need to verify that you have multipath support baked into your > kernel first. > > >> > > > >> >Joel Gerber > > >> >Network Specialist > > >> >Network Operations > > >> >Eastlink > > >> >E: Joel.Gerber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx T: 519.786.1241 > > >> > > > >> >-----Original Message----- > > >> >From: lartc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:lartc-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Ole Craig > > >> >Sent: April-16-14 7:34 AM > > >> >To: lartc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > >> >Subject: iproute2 does not select 1st default route in table? > > >> > > > >> >I am having the damnedest time with a dual-IP CentOS5-based > appliance which seems to defy its iproute2 configuration, and I'm here > hoping someone smarter than me (admittedly not a high bar) might be so > kind as to tell me what I'm missing: > > >> > # ip route show table main > > >> > 10.1.1.1 dev tun0 proto kernel scope link src > 10.1.1.7 > > >> > 10.250.32.1 via 10.1.1.1 dev tun0 > > >> > 10.250.10.0/24 via 10.1.1.1 dev tun0 > > >> > 192.168.25.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src > 192.168.25.124 > > >> > 192.168.25.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src > 192.168.25.100 > > >> > default via 192.168.25.1 dev eth1 > > >> > default via 192.168.25.1 dev eth0 > > >> > # ip route get 8.8.8.8 > > >> > 8.8.8.8 via 192.168.25.1 dev eth0 src 192.168.25.124 > > >> > cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64 > > >> > > > >> >I have been playing with this box for several days, and no > matter what I do (including reboots) it wants to route almost > everything out eth0 instead of eth1, despite the ordering of default > routes shown above which should see eth1 taking precedence. No > iptables PREROUTING/nat/mangle/raw stuff, this is all straight > iproute2. > > >> > > > >> >I determined that the 'main' table was the one at issue by > inserting and removing an overriding rule at various priorities to see > when 'ip get' > > >> >would change behavior: > > >> > # ip rule show | tail > > >> > 32758: from all to 192.168.72.0/24 lookup > defroutes > > >> > 32759: from 192.168.72.0/24 lookup defroutes > > >> > 32760: from 192.168.72.0/24 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32766: from all lookup main > > >> > 32767: from all lookup default > > >> > # ip route add table custom to 8.8.8.0/24 via > 192.168.72.1 dev eth1 src 192.168.72.100 > > >> > # for i in $(seq 32767 -1 32764); do ip rule add prio $i > to 8.8.8.0/24 lookup custom; ip route flush cache; sleep 2; echo -en > "$i:\t"; ip route get 8.8.8.8| head -1; ip rule del prio $i to > 8.8.8.0/24 lookup custom; ip route flush cache; sleep 2; done > > >> > 32767: 8.8.8.8 via 192.168.72.1 dev eth0 src > 192.168.72.124 > > >> > 32766: 8.8.8.8 via 192.168.72.1 dev eth0 src > 192.168.72.124 > > >> > 32765: 8.8.8.8 via 192.168.72.1 dev eth1 src > 192.168.72.100 > > >> > 32764: 8.8.8.8 via 192.168.72.1 dev eth1 src > 192.168.72.100 > > >> > > > >> >Both interfaces are up, and are *able* to reach 8.8.8.8 via the > upstream > > >> >gw: > > >> > # ping -c 1 -I eth0 8.8.8.8 > > >> > PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) from 192.168.72.124 eth0: 56(84) > bytes of data. > > >> > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=47 time=14.9 ms > > >> > > > >> > --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- > > >> > 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time > 0ms > > >> > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 14.990/14.990/14.990/0.000 ms > > >> > # ping -c 1 -I eth1 8.8.8.8 > > >> > PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8) from 192.168.72.100 eth1: 56(84) > bytes of data. > > >> > 64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=47 time=14.9 ms > > >> > > > >> > --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- > > >> > 1 packets transmitted, 1 received, 0% packet loss, time > 0ms > > >> > rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 14.999/14.999/14.999/0.000 ms > > >> > > > >> >Can anyone help my figure out why this box (alone out of many, > many appliances with similar configurations at various customer sites) > is determined to reach out through eth0? > > >> > > > >> >The full RPDB ruleset: > > >> > # ip rule show > > >> > 0: from all lookup 255 > > >> > 10: from all lookup bootstrap > > >> > 32736: from all to 128.119.40.1 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32737: from all to 192.168.126.228 lookup > mgtroutes > > >> > 32738: from all to 192.168.76.232 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32739: from all to 192.168.90.112 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32740: from all to 192.168.61.112 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32741: from all to 192.168.76.232 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32742: from all to 192.168.61.112 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32743: from all to 192.168.34.35 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32744: from all to 192.168.61.112 lookup defroutes > > >> > 32745: from all to 192.168.134.47 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32746: from all to 192.168.127.68 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32747: from all to 192.168.66.6 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32748: from all to 192.168.126.228 lookup > mgtroutes > > >> > 32749: from all to 192.168.127.68 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32750: from all to 192.168.134.41 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32751: from all to 192.168.134.41 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32752: from all to 192.168.76.232 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32753: from all to 107.23.15.175 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32754: from all to 216.87.69.94 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32755: from 192.168.72.124 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32756: from 192.168.72.100 lookup defroutes > > >> > 32757: from 192.168.72.0/24 to 192.168.72.0/24 > lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32758: from all to 192.168.72.0/24 lookup > defroutes > > >> > 32759: from 192.168.72.0/24 lookup defroutes > > >> > 32760: from 192.168.72.0/24 lookup mgtroutes > > >> > 32766: from all lookup main > > >> > 32767: from all lookup default > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > Thank you for any clue you can spare, > > >> > Ole > > >> >-- > > >> >Ole Craig <olc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > >> > > > >> >-- > > >> >To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe lartc" > in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo > info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > > >> {.n++%ݶ w{.n+j\)w*jg ݢj > > > G > > > j:+vwjm wfh٥ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > contatos: > Celular: ( 99 ) 9143-5954 - Vivo > skype: lucasd3castro > msn: lucascastroborges@xxxxxxxxxxx > > ��.n��������+%������w��{.n����j�\�)�� jg��� �����ݢj����G���� ���j:+v���w�m������w�������h�����٥
