On 01/22/2018 09:55 AM, Leroy Tennison wrote:
I'm just beginning to learn about multiple routing tables so I tried the following suspecting it wouldn't work (and it didn't): 'ip rule add from eth1 table dsl' and got 'Error: ??? prefix is expected rather than "eth1"'
Now my brain is starting to wonder about the pros and cons of: - Policy Based Routing (PBR) (what you're doing) - Network Namespaces - Virtual Routing and Forwarding (a.k.a. L3MDEV)Though, based on Anton's comment, I don't know that "ping -I" would have worked as desired.
That being said, it would be possible to have the NNS based gateways with proxy-arp enabled. Thus you could probably do something like this:
ping -I dsl google.com ping -I fbr google.comWhere dsl and fbr are vEth links into the respective NNSs w/ proxy-arp enabled.
I don't have enough experience with VRF (L3MDEV) to know how it would play different. But I do think that VRF avoids some of the need for ip rules (PBR) to specify source IP or interface as it handles (some of?) that for you.
-- Grant. . . . unix || die
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature