ip route add xxxx table yyyy does not work

dawid.ciezarkiewicz · 2006-12-28 14:29:24

dpc@empire:~$ sudo ip route ls table main | grep 8.8.8.8
dpc@empire:~$ sudo ip route ls table 10
dpc@empire:~$ sudo ip route add 8.8.8.8/31 via 10.8.19.3 table 10
dpc@empire:~$ sudo ip route ls table 10
dpc@empire:~$ sudo ip route ls table main | grep 8.8.8.8
8.8.8.8/31 via 10.8.19.3 dev tun3

It seems ip route does not use table parameter at add.

dpc@empire:~$ uname -a
Linux empire 2.6.19-beyond #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Dec 15 17:41:19 EST 2006 i686 Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU 2.60GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux
dpc@empire:~$ pacman -Q iproute
iproute 061002-2

ralvez · 2006-12-28 17:16:14

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here but I'm guessing you are having a hard time adding a default gateway?

The command is:

route add default gw 10.8.19.1 eth0

Note: I'm just using a bogus IP address and assume that the NiC interface is eth0, you may adjust that to your specific needs.

To test that it works issue "route"

Hope this helps.

R

dawid.ciezarkiewicz · 2006-12-28 18:15:36

LOL

I'm talking that on Arch "ip route add" command does not use "table X" parameter and throws everything to main routing table. This is some bug. I gues headers/compilation problem or something like this.

Hope this clarify my post.

cactus · 2006-12-29 00:20:17

ummm... a /31 gives you two hosts.

Did you try any other netmasks?
It might be that a /31 isn't "happy", because that mask is not often used (as it specifies only two hosts).
That is not a possible mask for a network, since it would only specify a network id, and a broadcast, if use on an interface.

Try a full /32 mask and see if that works.

dawid.ciezarkiewicz · 2006-12-29 11:41:51

No, it does not. It does not make difference how many hosts netmask has.

I wish someone reproduce this and we can think where the problem is.

cactus · 2006-12-29 16:20:41

       table TABLEID
the table to add this route to.  TABLEID may be a  number  or  a string from the file /etc/iproute2/rt_tables.  If this parameter is omitted, ip assumes the main table,  with  the  exception  of local  ,  broadcast and nat routes, which are put into the local table by default.

I tried adding an entry to the rt_tables file, but like you, I was unable to put a route into a custom table.
Did this work for you in the past kernel versions? I haven't dealt with ip route very often, as I don't do much policy based routing. I have done some source routing with it, but I have never used custom tables and routing rules.

dawid.ciezarkiewicz · 2006-12-29 16:25:38

The problem is using routing tables is quite uncommon. I've done that before on some router machines, but not on my workstation (where Arch resides) - till now. So I have now clue when was that working last time in Arch.

Bebo · 2006-12-29 20:36:45

If you use the Arch "default" kernel I think you need to recompile it, after adding the options CONFIG_IP_ADVANCED_ROUTER and CONFIG_IP_MULTIPLE_TABLES to the config.

To use the iptables MARK target to mark packets and select a specific routing table based on this, you also need CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_FWMARK set.

dawid.ciezarkiewicz · 2006-12-30 00:34:06

Thx. I'd expect error of any kind - not such behaviour. But you are probably right. I'd do that.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-12-28 14:29:24

ip route add xxxx table yyyy does not work

#2 2006-12-28 17:16:14

Re: ip route add xxxx table yyyy does not work

#3 2006-12-28 18:15:36

Re: ip route add xxxx table yyyy does not work

#4 2006-12-29 00:20:17

Re: ip route add xxxx table yyyy does not work

#5 2006-12-29 11:41:51

Re: ip route add xxxx table yyyy does not work

#6 2006-12-29 16:20:41

Re: ip route add xxxx table yyyy does not work

#7 2006-12-29 16:25:38

Re: ip route add xxxx table yyyy does not work

#8 2006-12-29 20:36:45

Re: ip route add xxxx table yyyy does not work

#9 2006-12-30 00:34:06

Re: ip route add xxxx table yyyy does not work

Board footer