>> # until this, enough to ping networks >> # can ping 192.168.10.333, 192.168.10.2, cc.cc.cc.1 >> # not: own ip's?? cc.cc.cc.43, 192.168.10.232 > >Bring the loopback interface up in the network namespace. It's required >to ping your local IPs. Yes indeed! Thanks >> ip route add default via cc.cc.cc.1 dev testeth1 table 81 > >What is the need for the separate routing table (81)? > >Network namespaces have their own set of routing tables. I can't remember exactly. I was working on this half year ago. I think it has to do with that multiple networks are created in the same namespace. I am retesting this now. >> # necessary for the host 192.192.168.114 to ping cc.cc.cc.43 >> ip route add 192.168.10.114 dev testeth1 scope global table 81 >> >> ip rule add from all to cc.cc.cc.43 table 81 >> ip rule add from cc.cc.cc.43 table 81 >> >> # can ping dd.dd.dd.130 > >Do you have a route to dd.dd.dd.130 in the main / default routing tables >inside the network namespace? No >If you don't, chances are good that the kernel can't determine an >outgoing interface to determine the source IP to match any ip rules. Hmmm interesting. So I cannot make it like that if a process chooses interface 1, it gets routings for that interface and if it chooses interface 2 it gets those routings? >I don't see any need for table 81 in any of this. > I will get back to you on this. I think that this could maybe be related to that both interfaces need to be able to communicate with the same host ip. (and can have gateways)
