Ronny wrote: > Al Boldi wrote: > >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? > > Confusing here in routing it's either ,interface or dest-network > but not dest-mask ,probably you are bringing us something new to > our attention.Wish you could elaborate please. > Doesn't dest-mask imply dest-network? Also, the idea to default route a packet by matching it to the most bits and dropping the fact it came in on a different network/dev is strange! -- 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
