I have configured LVS under RHEL5. I need to configure static route to my VIP. Now, I used the following command to add route but reboot OS will flush the route.
# route add -host 192.168.11.55 dev lo:0
how to add static route for certain network via /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route-<device-name>. But I did not found that for host.
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 own an Ubuntu Server 9.04 on a remote dedicated server. Since a few days (?) the loopback interface is not 'up' on reboot : I only have eth0 (which works fine).Here is my /etc/networking/interfaces (did not change since server initialization):
# This file describes the network interfaces available on your system
# and how to activate them. For more information, see interfaces(5).
# The loopback network interface
[code]....
I have a client's linux server where someone added a script which sends spam mails from the server's local loopback address (127.0.0.1) all my seniors worked on it and couldn't trace the script on the server this issue was going for a week, now I have an idea to bring down the loopback interface of that particular server(ya, that was not a permanent solution but just had an idea), but my support manager told that it will bring the whole server down(so far as i have learn't loopback address is used only for testing the NIC card's functionality), is that really bring the server down.?. How ever i tried this using a test machine all the connections works fine even after i bring down the loopback interface. As my client's server is a production server i can't test it there without clear knowledge, can any one help me out whether will it bring down the server or will it cause any side effects on it(i know that you guys are experts so i am asking it here)?
View 5 Replies View RelatedI have a problem with my F13 and wired connections on my Acer TravelMate 2410. When I connect the inet cable it doesn't show it as connected. When I type ifconfig, it shows everything as it should. When I tried to bring up eth0 with ifup eth0, it said that the device is not managed by NetworkManager. I tried to restart nm with service network restart, but it gave this error:
Shutting down loopback interface: Error org.freedesktop.NetworkManagerSettings.InvalidConn ection: ifcfg file ;/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-lo' unknown
The same error came up for eth0 and Wired_connection_1 (the connection I configured from NM )
When I typed nmcli dev list it gave me:
GENERAL.DEVICE: wlan0
GENERAL.TYPE: 802-11-wireless
GENERAL.DRIVER: ath5k
GENERAL.HWADDR: 00:14:A4:4D:B8:FC
GENERAL.STATE: disconnected
CAPABILITIES.CARRIER-DETECT: no
CAPABILITIES.SPEED: unknown
WIFI-PROPERTIES.WEP: yes
WIFI-PROPERTIES.WPA: yes
WIFI-PROPERTIES.WPA2: yes
WIFI-PROPERTIES.TKIP: yes
WIFI-PROPERTIES.CCMP: yes
GENERAL.DEVICE: eth0
GENERAL.TYPE: 802-3-ethernet
GENERAL.DRIVER: 8139too
GENERAL.HWADDR: 00:0a:E4:EB:32:E2
GENERAL.STATE: unavailable
CAPABILITIES.CARRIER-DETECT: yes
CAPABILITIES.SPEED: 10 Mb/s
WIRED-PROPERTIES.CARRIER: off
I'm running Ubuntu 11.04 and I've been unable to access any type of Internet service besides web browsing. When I check on Network Tools, it's always set on Loopback Interface, regardless of whether I've just switched it to Ethernet Interface. I haven't been able to download system updates through Update Manager. I'm not very experienced with Ubuntu.
View 9 Replies View RelatedOn a Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.4 (Tikanga) system, I set up a static route that unfortunately seems to get ignored.I set up the static route in the file /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/route-eth0 as follows: 172.16.96.2/32 via 192.168.219.251
I've restarted the network service and also rebooted a few times. Here's my current routing table:
[Code]....
I am able to ping 172.16.96.2. However, when I do traceroute 172.16.96.2, it appears that the traffic goes through the default gateway 192.168.219.250 instead of our requested specific gateway 192.168.219.251:
[Code]....
I can ping both 192.168.219.251 and 192.168.219.250. In the route-eth0 file, I�ve also tried using the alternate syntax with ADDRESS0=<IP address> etc, but it didn�t work any better. I also tried setting a more general route of
172.16.96.0/24 via 192.168.219.251
The System / Administration / Network tool previously showed a spurious extra NIC called eth0.bak in addition to eth0. I deleted the eth0.bak and rebooted, but this also didn't help. Currently, eth0 is the only NIC on the system.
The following are the output of command "ifconfig -a":
[Code]....
The interface "eth0", which is down, was not displayed, but loopback interface has been displayed. So, how can I make my application display all interfaces, including the interfaces which are down, but excluding the loopback interface?
Using Ubuntu 9.1, I get the error "SIOCADDRT: No such process" whenever I try to set a static route using
sudo route add -net dest netmask 255.255.255.0 gw gateway
and
sudo ip route add dest/24 via gateway dev eth0
gives me "RTNETLINK answers: No such process".
From googling, it looks like others have had this problem, but I haven't found any working solutions yet. Anyone have any idea how to fix this?Ok, finally found the issue. The gateway has to be on the same subnet... ugh, is there anyway to use a gateway on a different subnet without tunnels? I can ping the machine I want to be the gateway, so I feel like I should be allowed to set it as a next hop for specific addresses.
so on the host i'm trying to connect to, i have installed ssh server and it was working fine until i changed the /etc/network/interfaces file to set a static IP and then ran Code: sudo /etc/init.d/networking restart but now when i try to connect with SSH using the new static IP i get Code: ssh: connect to host 192.168.2.10 port 22: No route to host
View 6 Replies View RelatedI've trying to add a route to a host to force traffic out of a clustered IP address...
IE I have a cluster and the IP address moves from host to host on failure of a resource. The IP address is just a simple alias of an interface so for example... bond0:0 192.168.1.1 and bond0 192.168.1.10
What I want to do is force a program that starts up on the cluster hosts which sends packets out to a listening server to only send out of the cluster ip address.
I did a route add -host 172.22.2.2 gw 192.168.1.1. But this doesn't seem to work if i try to send a ping the packets still go out the wrong address, and more and above that for some reason the ping doesn't work at all. If i remove the route the ping will work again.
I have a dual NIC firewall and everything works fine but only if I run the static route for the default gateway manually:route add -net 0.0.0.0 netmask 0.0.0.0 gw x.x.x.x dev eth1.Where eth1 is my WAN interface and x.x.x.x is my WAN IP. I've spent about 20 hours trying to figure out just how to get this static route to come up automatically upon reboot. I've read all the manuals and all that jazz.I've added the "up route..." or the "post-up route..." commands to the /etc/network/interfaces file but that does not work (although my other static routes work just fine from here). I've copied the relevant text and pasted it onto the command line to confirm correctness - everything with the command is fine.
I've also creates a static-routes file (and chmod +x, confirmed the correct permissions, etc) in /etc/network/interfaces/if-up.d/ and attempted to set the routes here (yes - using the "/sbin/route add -net." terms that work FINE from the command line). But that does not work either.
I'm using ubuntu server 10.04. I need to create a second network to do some testing. Here's what it looks like so far: WAN > x.x.x.x/9 > router > 192.168.1.0/24 > LAN
I need to do this: WAN > x.x.x.x/9 > router > 192.168.1.0/24 > LAN > ubuntu server (LAMP, dhcp, dns via eth1) [eth0 192.168.1.138] > ubuntu server [eth1 10.0.0.1] The two networks should be transparent to one another. I've got everything working, except routing. Here is ifconfig:
[Code]...
I have a suse with 2 eth interface both connected :
eth0 is configured with public ip Code: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1E:0B:48:7E:D2
inet addr:87.*.*.* Bcast:87.*.*.* Mask:255.255.255.240 and eth1 with internal ip Code: eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1E:0B:48:7E:DA
[code].....
Running Gentoo with kernel 2.6.29 on a Sparc Ultra 10. I'm having problems with my cable modem connection failing, so I've added a static route that enables me to log into the modem's diagnostics page at 192.168.100.1 when the connection drops; my /etc/conf.d/net looks like this (with the comment lines removed).
Code:
dns_domain_lo="MYNETWORK"
config_eth1=("192.168.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.0.255")
config_eth0=("dhcp")
routes_eth0=(
"192.168.100.1/32 via 0.0.0.0"
) dhcpcd_eth0="-N"
This works but after a period of several hours to several days, this static route disappears from the routing table.
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 have two NIC, one is ethernet and second is via modem. On the eth0, most of no standard ports are blocked, so I need to connect to specified port on some IP, through ppp0 (modem), to use ssh connection on non standard port to that IP. For other ports on that IP and all other IPs I want to use eth0.
View 1 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 want to build a topology of this kind:
|eth0 (a.a.a.a) |
Linux PC |<----------------> | ROUTER
|eth1 (b.b.b.b) |
|<----------------->|
the linux machine has two interfaces eth0 (a.a.a.a) and eth1 (b.b.b.b) connnected to two interfaces of a router. Now that if I send any packet destined to b.b.b.b from a.a.a.a interface on the linux machine, it should take the folowing path: eth0->router->eth1 . and it should be the same for vice versa.
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.
The task I am trying to complete is the virtualization of an IPv6 router created using two fedora machines. Here is the physical setup I have now...
PC1:eth0 <------> network
PC1:eth1 <------> PC2:eth0
PC1:eth2 <------> PC2:eth1
PC1 runs radvd to provide router advertisements to the network and a DHCPv6 server for stateful addresses.Each interface is configured on a separate subnet. PC2 runs a DNS server on eth0. PC2:eth1 is used as an IPv6 client for testing purposes. The connections from PC1 to PC2 are just crossover cables.I've created virtual machines of both PCs and have created 4 virtual adapters on the host machine for each of the local-only interfaces.Now I have this:
PC1:eth0 = HOST eth0
PC1:eth1 = HOST vboxnet0
PC1:eth2 = HOST vboxnet1
[code]....
My Ubuntu Box has 3 interfaces. eth0 (Internal 192.168.1.0/24)eth1 (External ISP DHCP)eth2 (External ISP Static IP)I need the outgoing traffic to internet for 1 of the internal pc (192.168.1.10) to only go only go through eth2
View 4 Replies View RelatedI've looked everywhere and tried everything. All I want to do is set up a static ip with my wireless network interface wlan0.
View 5 Replies View RelatedMy /etc/hostname is not announced on the local network (not showing up on my Mac nor router) when setting /etc/network/interfaces to:
Code:
iface eth0 inet static
address10.0.0.10
netmask255.255.255.0
gateway10.0.0.1
I have tried bringing the interface up and down, and have also rebooted. If I change it to DHCP it will display, but this does not really help me.
where are the interface configurations (set by ifconfig, not the static ones) stored? I'm asking because I'm trying to understand, more broadly, the order of IP address lookup. If I ping the local machine (localhost, or one of the interfaces) no messages get sent out (at least according to wireshark), so some local lookup must be taking place.
View 1 Replies View Relatedtoday I tried to configure a network route to a host for testing my network interface. Code: route add 192.168.1.15 eth0 As I have to eth interfaces and both interface got their IP from DHCP (192.168.1.11 and 192.168.1.12) and are in the same subnet, I shut the other interface down:
Code: ifconfig eth1 down Then I tried to test the interface by doing a ping to 192.168.1.15.
Problem: When I unplug the cable from eth0 (and eth1 is still plugged) the ping still works. Somehow my linux (it's debian) powers up again eth0 and pings over this port.
How can I stop my linux doing this. I just want to have the route added only on the one interface - not the other. Is it maybe some case of a default-gateway?
do you know if there is any possibility to route/force non-vlan packet to a vlan interface in Linux?
View 2 Replies View RelatedI 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.
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 Replies View RelatedHaving 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?