Re: Weird routing issue

[Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>]

>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Loftis <mloftis@modwest.com> writes:

    Michael> netstat -rn output on the box (.7?) having issues.

# netstat -rn | grep '^192\.168\.0'
192.168.0.0     0.0.0.0         255.255.255.0   U        40 0          0 eth0
192.168.0.0     192.168.0.8     255.255.0.0     UG       40 0          0 eth0

default route:
0.0.0.0         220.244.151.9   0.0.0.0         UG       40 0          0 eth1

I believe the first one should get used in favour of others.
There are no other routes for 192.168.0.*

Obviously this was different when I was routing via 192.168.0.8.

    Michael> sounds like you have a more specific route going on or

Not that I can see...

    Michael> something similar.  does .5 hear the ARP requests when .7

I can't check easily this aspect :-(. (No Linux computers on this end
of the network). It looks like this will be the next step...

    Michael> makes them?  if so, does it respond?  is .5 and .7 set
    Michael> with the CORRECT netmask on the(eth0?) interface in
    Michael> question?

The netmask looks good to me on the local computers:

# ip address show eth0
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,ALLMULTI,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100
    link/ether 00:40:f4:2b:71:c6 brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    inet 192.168.0.7/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global eth0
    inet 192.168.0.3/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global secondary eth0:1

# ip address show eth0
2: eth0: <BROADCAST,MULTICAST,UP> mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 100
    link/ether 00:40:05:a3:65:5b brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
    inet 192.168.0.8/24 brd 192.168.0.255 scope global eth0
    inet 220.244.190.30/29 brd 220.244.190.39 scope global eth0:1
    inet 220.244.190.34/29 brd 220.244.190.39 scope global eth0:2
    inet 220.244.190.33/29 brd 220.244.190.39 scope global secondary eth0:3
    inet 220.244.190.35/29 brd 220.244.190.39 scope global secondary eth0:4

I can't imagine the netmask being wrong on 192.168.0.5, but can't
check right now, either.

Hmmm... Actually it would have to be more complicated then that as it
seems to be sensitive to the Ethernet adaptor (or address), otherwise
it would work after changing the IP address. I had to also route via
the other system too.

For this theory to be correct, 192.168.0.5, 192.168.0.8 and
192.168.0.10, would have to be inside the netmask, but not
192.168.0.7.

Hmmm... Now I try it, not even 192.168.0.10 works anymore, not even
under the conditions as before. I hate networks that change!
-- 
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>