People wrote: > . > . > [Confusion} > . > . Recap: ip route list: 10.0.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.0.0.1 10.0.1.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 10.0.1.1 10.0.0.0/8 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.0.0.1 127.0.0.0/8 dev lo scope link ip route list match 10.0.1.2: 10.0.1.0/24 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 10.0.1.1 10.0.0.0/8 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.0.0.1 ip route list match 10.0.1.2/8: 10.0.0.0/8 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.0.0.1 Now: Host receives ping from 10.0.1.2/8 on 10.0.0.0/8 eth0 Host replies to 10.0.1.2 using route 10.0.1.0/24 eth1. Host should have replied to 10.0.1.2 using route 10.0.0.0/8 eth0! Is it possible to instruct the Kernel to use the dest-mask instead of just letting it assume /32? Thanks! -- Al - : 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
