No, everything is right in its output:
1.1.1.1 via 192.168.16.2 dev eth1 src 192.168.16.1
cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 metric10 64
2.2.2.2 via 192.168.17.2 dev eth2 src 192.168.17.1
cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 metric10 64
3.3.3.3 via 192.168.16.2 dev eth1 src 192.168.16.1
cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 metric10 64
4.4.4.4 via 192.168.17.2 dev eth2 src 192.168.17.1
cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 metric10 64
5.5.5.5 via 192.168.16.2 dev eth1 src 192.168.16.1
cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 metric10 64
6.6.6.6 via 192.168.17.2 dev eth2 src 192.168.17.1
cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 metric10 64
7.7.7.7 via 192.168.16.2 dev eth1 src 192.168.16.1
cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 metric10 64
8.8.8.8 via 192.168.17.2 dev eth2 src 192.168.17.1
cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 metric10 64
9.9.9.9 via 192.168.16.2 dev eth1 src 192.168.16.1
cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 metric10 64
10.10.10.10 via 192.168.17.2 dev eth2 src 192.168.17.1
cache mtu 1500 advmss 1460 metric10 64
About the 16.x and 17.x addresses... yes, there are other routers,
which make NAT (192.168.16.2 and 192.168.17.2) to internet.
On 7/4/05, /dev/rob0 <rob0@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Monday 04 July 2005 10:07, I wrote:
> > Are multiple "ip route get ip.add.re.ss" commands in sequence showing
> > routes out the same interface?
>
> for X in `seq 10` ; do /sbin/ip route get $X.$X.$X.$X ; done
> --
> mail to this address is discarded unless "/dev/rob0"
> or "not-spam" is in Subject: header
>
>
