I got this definition:"a process that replaces a series of related, specific routes in a route table with a more generic route." honestly I found it not so clear.. I want to know if this definition is correct and also more details about this subject..
View 1 RepliesI have been encountering this problem, not only on 10.4, but on older versions too: I use a wifi router to connect my laptop to the Internet, but sometimes I need to connect directly to another computer to move some files over GLAN. But Ubuntu's Network manager doesn't allow me to configure the eth0 interface without specifying a gateway (no gateway = grey submit button), but when a gateway is specified, it always rewrites the default gw specified already by the active wifi connection and returns back after unplugging the eth cable.
Of course this can be solved by a few route commands, but this is unacceptable since it is needed to establish the cable connection without any further assistance from within and as well without replacing the default gw and thus breaking the Internet connection. Is there, please, any possibility how to prevent Network Manager from replacing these routes?
I have some CISCO,Linux related problem with 2 Class C subnets:
192.168.64.0 -> PC5
192.168.65.0 -> PC6
Here's a picture of my situation: [URL]
HQ has to have 2 STATIC routes in order those 2 "PCs" mentioned above to have end to end connectivity with NETWORK A and NETWORK B. Now I try with
route0 -> network: 0.0.0.0, mask: 0.0.0.0, nexthop: Serial 0/0/0
route1 -> network: 0.0.0.0, mask: 0.0.0.0, nexthop: Serial 0/0/1
And it seems to work but I don't think it's proper! I feel it's kinda wrong ... but all my other attempts to set another couple of static routes ends in "Request timed out" and thus connection lost.
Is there a way to bind specific programs to specific network devices (not IPs, since I have dynamic IPs)?
For example, I wish for irssi to route through eth0 and w3m to route through eth1. Keep in mind these devices have dynamic IPs, so I cannot attached them to an IP.
The solution cannot be accomplished through route since route pivots on IPs not devices.
I have 3 network interfaces on my Linux Router :
Interface - Gateway - Type
Code:
br0 - 192.168.0.1 - Internet
eth2 - 192.168.1.1 - LAN
tun0 - 10.0.0.2 - VPN (via br0)
What I'd like to do is to route all TCP packets coming from eth2 to tun0 where a VPN client is running on 10.0.0.2. If I delete all default routes and if I add a new route to tun0 like :
Code:
route del default
route add default gw 10.0.0.2
Everything is fine, and everyone on eth2 can reach the Internet using the VPN access. Now the problem is that my VPN client does not allow any other protocols other than TCP. And I also want to allow VPN access only to eth2, no other LAN nor the router itself. use iptables to filter any TCP packets and mark them, so they can be sent to tun0, while any other packets can reach the Internet via br0 (192.168.0.1). I found on the Internet that we can mark packets before they get routed. Using the following commands :
Code:
iptables -t mangle -A PREROUTING -j MARK --set-mark 85 -i eth2 -p tcp --dport 80
ip route add table 300 default via 10.0.0.2 dev tun0
ip rule add fwmark 0x55 table 300
First of all, --dport 80 never work... :/ I wanted to filter TCP 80 packets coming from eth2, but none of them seems to be HTTP packets... oO (very strange...). Nevermind, I decided to forget about the --dport option. I use the "iptables -L -v -t mangle" command to see how many packets are marked, and it is working fine, all TCP packets coming from eth2 are marked. Now the problem is that none of them are routed to tun0 they are all respecting the "route -n" rules... and not the "table 300" rule I have created.
Going haywire on a new Centos 5.4 64bit install on vmware esx 4. I should know, but my mind is obviously fucked up today. I get the "distination unreachable", indicating something ICMP related, checked network setup, all looks like usual. Except my routing table lacks the 127.0.0.0 and 0.0.0.0 def. gw entries, as in this working box example:
192.168.9.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
0.0.0.0 192.168.9.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
FWIW, during install, did the usual basic firewall steps, not'n extra added but SSH. Tried with/without iptables, no change; no wonder given the lacky routing table. Sure, I can add what's missing, but I'd like to know why it's missing; i.e. what I missed on basic setup, as I'm going to repeat this with a nof Centos/RHEL installations (replacing SLES).
New Centos 5.4 64bit install on vmware esx 4, NAT net setup. I can ping/trace other servers on IP, do nslookup's on name..Ping(traceroute on name gets me "distination unreachable", indicating an ICMP issue, so I checked the network setup, all looks like usual.Well, except that my routing table lacks the 127.0.0.0 and 0.0.0.0 def. gw entries, as in this working box example:
192.168.9.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
0.0.0.0 192.168.9.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
FWIW, during install, I did the usual basic firewall steps,including SSH.Tried with/without iptables, no change; no wonder given the lacky routing table. Sure, I can add what's missing to the routing table, but I'd like to know why it's missing; i.e. what I missed on basic setup, as I'm going to repeat this with a nof new installations (replacing SLES).
I would like to add a static route, however I do not understand what is meant by the Address setting below
GATEWAY2=10.241.58.62
NETMASK2=255.255.255.224
ADDRESS2=10.241.57.32
Does this mean any addresses beginning with 10.241.57.32 are routed over the gateway 10.241.58.62 an address range
I have an Asterisk-server with 2 interfaces, a WAN-interface (eth1) and a LAN-interface (eth0).
SETUP : IAX-provider(internet) --> firewall --> Asterisk-server --> switch --> clients_on_LAN
So everything coming from the IAX-provider on port 4569 is forwarded to the Asterisk-server's WAN-interface (eth1). This needs then be routed to an internal SIP-phone (an IVR-system will define which one) via eth0. When a call is initiated from an internal SIP-phone (they register to the IP-address assigned to eth0) it needs to be routed via eth1 to the gateway (192.168.4.250). Asterisk will setup an IAX-channel on WAN-interface (eth1) to the IAX-provider (via gateway). So... will this work :
Code:
route add -net ip_IAXprovider netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.4.250 dev eth1
Code:
route add -net 192.168.4.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev eth0 (no gateway needed for the LAN-interface, communications to the gateway need to go via the WAN-interface !)
I use a secure connection to reach company network from outside. There's a client application "Juniper network", which creates the secured tunnel to a company network. However, the connection never survives more than 8 seconds, when it goes disconnected with the message "Route monitor alarm". From my recent search for a solution I've found that this error is caused by a change in a route table, which violates a connection policy.
"This disconnect is typically triggered by a change in the routing table of the client machine, the change is such that the split tunnel policies defined by the administrator will be violated" - from [URL]
This is how a routing table looks before, during and after the connection attempt:
Code:
[vs@dilbert network-scripts]$ route
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
10.64.64.64 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0
xxx.xxx.xxx.0 10.64.64.64 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 ppp0
[Code].....
I have to route some packages over the right interface.I default route everything for the target-network over one network-interface. That works perfectly. But i have to route packages for one specific host and one specific port over another network-interface. I tried many things with the route-command, but i think there's no possibility to route only one port? May i can do this with iptables? I only found ways to forward some packages, which are coming in over one interface. But in my case all packages go out over one interface.
View 13 Replies View RelatedI've got a few systems which forward ports to one another all over the place, and somewhere along the line a port forward fails. I want to trace the route of a connection on a specific port to see where the connection hits a wall, to see what system is causing the problem. I've tried `tracetoure -T -p <port>` but it doesn't output anything about the ports it hits, stops when it hits the address I supplied even though it is forwarded elsewhere, and there doesn't seem to be a verbose mode. interstingly, if I specify a different source port via the '-s' option, the trace keeps hopping to * * * * and never get anywhere (at least to 27 hops then I CTRL+C)
View 6 Replies View RelatedI have an Asterisk-server with 2 interfaces, a WAN-interface (eth1) and a LAN-interface (eth0).
SETUP :
IAX-provider(internet) --> firewall --> Asterisk-server --> switch --> clients_on_LAN
So everything coming from the IAX-provider on port 4569 is forwarded to the Asterisk-server's WAN-interface (eth1).
This needs then be routed to an internal SIP-phone (an IVR-system will define which one) via eth0.
When a call is initiated from an internal SIP-phone (they register to the IP-address assigned to eth0) it needs to be routed via eth1 to the gateway (192.168.4.250). Asterisk will setup an IAX-channel on WAN-interface (eth1) to the IAX-provider (via gateway).
So... will this work :
route add -net ip_IAXprovider netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.4.250 dev eth1
I have a linux router with 2 physical ISPs and a VPN tunnel that all my traffic passes through. I would like to setup a rule to redirect all traffic from one internal IP address (10.0.0.x) through the physical link only. My current script is as follows.
iptables -F
iptables -X
echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
[code]....
My goal is to do something similar to the mangle on the tor traffic, but for an entire host.
Having trouble getting my Netgear WNA1000 working thru wireless router. Have tried lots of suggestions from other threads to no avail. Someone suggested that th routing table isn't set correctly, so have been trying to use the follwing to make the proper entry in the routing table: sudo route add -net 192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev wlan0
Result: error message stating with:
"route: netmask does not match route address"
followed by "Usage" instructions which tell me to do what I just did. Any ideas on how I can populate my routing table with correct entry for my wireless card? Not to complicate matters, but I temporarily turned off encryption on my router to eliminate that as a possibility until I get connected. So maybe it'still trying to connect via encrypted mode - do I need to turn off encryption on my (client) end?
There are two connections in my Ubuntu server: eth0 is a normal interface and, eth1 is configured with an static IP, and has an domain name with that IP. But this connection is charged by bytes, very expensive.
how to set up the route table so that: everyone can access my server with the domain name, and let the traffic goes from eth0 as much as possible(I have a proxy service on my server. At least, let the proxy traffic goes from eth0)?
[Code]...
configure sendmail to route mail to specific hosts?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI use the system command route from a process (using the system() call). For security reasons the process does not have root privilege and for some reason I cannot use ioctl() either. I tried to set the capabilities of the process to NET_ADMIN and SYS_ADMIN but the route command still failed due to insufficient permissions.
What are the capabilities that I need to set for route to be successful?
I need to instruct sendmail to accept mails that are destined to users that are not available on my server and then forward those emails to catchall@mydomain.tld.Please remember that i don't want to forward every single mail to catchall user. I just want to forward those emails which would be destined for users that do not exist on my server.i have used define(`LUSER_RELAY', `local:catchall@d.com')but it doesn't seems to work.
View 2 Replies View RelatedI have a server in the office and when I need to connect via cable I have to start up a root terminal and type in:
route add -net 0.0.0.0 gw 10.0.1.10 dev eth0
Is there a way to have this saved so I don't have to re-type it every time ? I already tried adding the command in /etc/rc.local and also in /etc/network/interfaces but it doesn't.
I've succesfullly connected to my vpn with kvpnc, but none of my traffic is going through the vpn! I dont know how to route traffic to the vpn. for instance, when I go to whatsmyip.com it still has my previous ip.
View 1 Replies View RelatedI use linux.
I have below error, no route to host.
Code: route add -net 192.168.98.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 192.168.99.1 -net 192.168.98.0 , is it for ip address of the client/host? man route says , "target is a network".What does it mean?
View 1 Replies View RelatedI'm using Fedora 9 and has finished the DHCP for my eth2 and static on eth0. I would like to add a route so that the 192.168.22.x eth0 and 192.168.26.x eth2 can communicate to each others,.
View 3 Replies View RelatedWhat does it do? Any examples on how I use it?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI've got a 10.04 machine with two ethernet interfaces. I have two separate outside internet connections. This machine is connected to both interfaces. But it DOES NOT route between them. It's just a host on both subnets. Again, no routing is to go through this host. I'd like to force traffic originating on each ethernet port out to that network's internet connection.
Here's the desired setup:
eth0 192.168.12.37/24 gw 192.168.12.1
eth1 192.168.1.37/24 gw 192.168.1.1
I'd like traffic on the 192.168.1.37 address to go out through the 192.168.1.1 gateway. I have a program bound to that address and need it's traffic to go out ONLY through the 192.168.1.1 gateway. Any other traffic on the machine should go out the 192.168.12.1 gateway.
The logic is: source IP is 192.168.1.37, dest IP is any then go out only through 192.168.1.1 source IP is 192.168.12.37, dest IP is any then go out through 192.168.12.1 first or 192.168.1.1 next. The point is source on the .1.37 address must always go out the .1.1 gateway and NEVER through .12.1. Whereas traffic on the .12.37 address should try going out the .12.1 gateway first but can go out the .1.1 gateway if the .12.1 connection is down. I could live with this failover option. I could accept that traffic on the .12.37 address was likewise limited to its own gateway.
How can I add this to Ubuntu so that I can effectively use both networks connected to my machine. All I do in WinXP is run this from the command prompt: route -p add 10.0.0.0 mask 255.0.0.0 10.15.122.9
View 3 Replies View RelatedHow would I go about re-routing the audio of a Jaunty PC, to another on the same LAN?
View 3 Replies View RelatedI have 3 computers on a local home network. Computer 1 is not receiving incoming anything from other computers on the network, and I don't know why. The regular internet works fine.
Computer 1 can ping and ssh into either 2 or 3. 2 can ping and ssh into 3 and vice versa. But nothing can ping OR ssh into 1. Trying to do so says "no route to host".
All computers are running Ubuntu Karmic.
I have two NIC's interfaces on my linux machine(eth1 and eth2). Each have different IP addresses(10.0.0.1, 10.67.7.1). These two interfaces are connected together through hub. Here is the my question?
1) If I 'ping 10.0.0.1', it should go out through network interface eth2 and through hub and enter on eth1 and response also travel through similar direction.
2) If I 'ping 10.67.7.1', it should go out through network interface eth1 and through hub and enter on eth2.
How can setup routing table for this,I have tried setting up routing and iptables, etc.. nothing helped.
If any one good router/networking guy, you should know this one.I am doing a project, I want this way to handle this.