Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Feb 1999 12:53:15 -0600 (CST) | From | Adam Heath <> | Subject | Re: howto disable auto route setup? |
| |
On Wed, 3 Feb 1999 kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote:
> Hello! > > > Here is a WORKING network setup, that would break if auto-route was in use. > > There are lots of wouldbe working, but however invalid setups. > > Did you read my note in the mail which you replied to? > Let me to reproduce this: > > > > The only sense of netmask on interface is that BSD API complying > > > applications may read it and guess that destinations in this range > > > are DIRECTLY reachable. If we do not provide this > > > (even for several milliseconds), we have bug. If you do some smart > > > overrides, simultaneously cheating applications about netmask, > > > your configuration is wrong. > > The last sentence is exactly about this: > > > ifconfig eth0 $ip1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast x.x.x.255 arp > > ifconfig eth1 $ip1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast x.x.x.255 arp > > If you do not route $ip1 to eth1, why did you create this address token? > Just for fun? In your configuration no applications reading address > configuration will work correctly, you may expect all the kinds > of behaviours, only not correct one.
I see your point, and, to be consistent with the rest of my script, I should have used arp on eth1, with eth1 being a different ip address.
> Correct configuration is either: > > ifconfig eth1 $ip1 netmask 255.255.255.255 > route add -host $ip2 eth1 > route add -host $ip3 eth1 > > or, if it is real router then: > > ifconfig eth1:2 $ip1 pointopoint $ip2 netmask 255.255.255.255 > ifconfig eth1:3 $ip1 pointopoint $ip3 netmask 255.255.255.255 > > otherwise gated (or any other routing tool) will shred your network > to parts on startup 8) > > > BTW I sit on the network split exactly in this stupid way 8) > Let me to reproduce part of startup script: > > IP="/sbin/ip.LAST" > IPLINK="$IP link set" > IPADDR="$IP addr add" > IPROUTE="$IP route add" > IPRULE="$IP rule add" > .... > $IPADDR 193.233.7.85 local 193.233.7.254 dev eth1 > $IPLINK eth1 up > > $IPROUTE 193.233.7.98 dev eth1 scope link proto static > $IPROUTE 193.233.7.90 dev eth1 scope link proto static > $IPROUTE 193.233.7.91 dev eth1 scope link proto static > $IPROUTE 193.233.7.95 dev eth1 scope link proto static > > $IPROUTE 193.233.7.8/29 via 193.233.7.90 dev eth1 > .... > echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth0/proxy_arp > echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/eth1/proxy_arp > ....
This looks like it would work. However, my machine is some 1200 miles away from me, and I can't afford to have the network stop working when I am connected remotely thru said network.
> Probably, it is worth to note, that it is difficult to invent > more weird case than this one. However, this network has working > multicast routing 8)
The network consists of this 1 linux box, and windows terminals(don't call it an os).
I will check into changing my setup.
Adam
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |