On Friday 07 January 2005 09:25, Henrik Nordstrom wrote: > Please provide the following info & test results > > ip ro ls table 0 > > ip ru ls # ip ro ls table 0 10.0.22.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.0.22.xxx 10.0.24.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 10.0.24.xxx default via 10.0.22.1 dev eth0 broadcast 10.0.22.0 dev eth0 table local proto kernel scope link src 10.0.22.xxx broadcast 127.255.255.255 dev lo table local proto kernel scope link src 127.0.0.1 broadcast 10.0.24.0 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 10.0.24.xxx broadcast 10.0.22.255 dev eth0 table local proto kernel scope link src 10.0.22.xxx broadcast 10.0.24.255 dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope link src 10.0.24.xxx broadcast 127.0.0.0 dev lo table local proto kernel scope link src 127.0.0.1 local 10.0.24.xxx dev eth1 table local proto kernel scope host src 10.0.24.xxx local 127.0.0.1 dev lo table local proto kernel scope host src 127.0.0.1 local 10.0.22.xxx dev eth0 table local proto kernel scope host src 10.0.22.xxx local 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo table local proto kernel scope host src 127.0.0.1 # ip ru ls 0: from all lookup local 32766: from all lookup main 32767: from all lookup 253 > > does it work correctly (including ARP and ICMP going out and coming back > on the expected interface) when you ping the two CISCO router addresses? > > is the packets coming in on the correct interface when you try to ping the > IBM from the client? Yup, all packages are routed correctly then. Jan -- Nobody ever died from oven crude poisoning. - : send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
