routing tables on two NICs for network monitoring
Shawn Iverson
shawn at nccsc.k12.in.us
Thu Jan 22 18:10:55 UTC 2004
> From: Shawn Iverson [mailto:shawn at nccsc.k12.in.us]
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 8:29 AM
>
>
>
>
> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route-<interface-name>
>
> Contains lines that are arguments to "/sbin/ip route add"
> For example:
>
> 192.168.2.0/24 dev ppp0
>
> adds a network route to the 192.168.2.0 network through ppp0.
>
>
> So, I would have the following in route-eth0:
>
> 10.0.0.0/8 via 10.10.0.254 dev eth0 (I have many 10.x.0.0
> subnets)
> 192.168.0.0/16 via 10.10.0.254 dev eth0 (I have more
> than one 192.168.x.0
> subnet)
>
> Ok, maybe my routes above are too simple because I don't want
> 10.10.0.0/16
> traffic to try to exit via the 10.10.0.254 gateway. Would I
> necessarily
> need to make a route for every subnet on my network (20
> subnets), or could I
> just add the following before the above two, assuming that
> the routing table
> is read from the top downward? (Thank goodness I didn't set
> up the routers
> for this network...I would have everything messed up!)
>
> 10.10.0.0/16 dev eth0
>
I went ahead and tried my route settings above. It appears to be working
like it should. I was able to ping objects on local and remote subnets.
Also, traceroute shows packets traversing the correct paths. Is this a
valid/accepted way to route my traffic?
172.16.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
10.10.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
192.168.0.0 10.10.0.254 255.255.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
10.0.0.0 10.10.0.254 255.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
default 172.16.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list