I believe the expected behavior is for the 192.168.164.2 interface to route packets out the 10.19.174.242 interface if it is not intended for the 192.168.164.0 network. And in fact that is the behavior exhibited by F10 and Solaris 8 & 9. <br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">So not sure if the bug is Ubuntu or not but I'm not sure what the standard behaviour is and if it is different from the live version versus installed.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>It is not as much as the difference in behavior between live and installed versions as it is the difference in behavior between the newer Ubuntu versions and older Ubuntu versions as well as other Unix-y boxes. Here's a summary of what I've tried and observed:</div>
<div><br></div><div>Ubuntu 7.10 (Live) ---- Works as expected (as per my understanding/observation stated above).</div><div>Ubuntu 8.04 (Live) ---- Does not work as expected.</div><div>Ubuntu 8.10 (Live) ---- Does not work as expected.</div>
<div>Ubuntu 8.10 (Inst) ---- Does not work as expected.</div><div>Fedora 9 (Inst) ---- Works as expected.</div><div>Fedora 10 (Live) ---- Works as expected.</div><div>Solaris 9 & 10 (Inst) ---- Works as expected.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">Try just adding in a route just to the 10.19.176.22 pointing to the 192.168.164.1 than try pinging it. If it works, try pinging the 10.19.176.242 and chances are it wont work because you will have the same problem only in reverse. Or maybe it will all magically work and you can just add that route to your startup configuration.<br>
<font color="#888888"></font></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yep - I tried this and you guessed correctly - I had the problem, only in reverse.</div><div> </div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Venkat.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<font color="#888888">
<br> --j</font><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Venkat Chandra <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vc.lists@gmail.com" target="_blank">vc.lists@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex">
The IP trying to reach the 192.168.164.2 interface is 10.19.176.22.<div><br></div><div>I removed the iptables package for good measure after I noticed this problem. No luck. </div><div><br></div><div>I just tried a live Ubuntu 7.10 off of a USB drive and the routing works just fine. At this point, I am fairly certain this is a bug in Ubuntu 8.10 (and also 8.04 LTS). It would be great to have a workaround. Any suggestions are appreciated.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Venkat. <div><div></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 7:42 PM, J Cruit <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:j@packetgod.com" target="_blank">j@packetgod.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex">
What is the IP of the system trying to reach the 192.168.164.2 interface? It sounds like the system may not have a route back to the client. With the default route pointing to the 10.19.175.241 address anything not in a local subnet will get routed out that interface.<br>
<br>I've never seen Ubuntu behave differently than Fedora when it comes to routing, not sure what else could be going on there if there are no firewalls involved.<br><br>--j<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div>
</div><div>On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Venkat Chandra <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:vc.lists@gmail.com" target="_blank">vc.lists@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left:1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204);margin:0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex"><div><div></div><div>One of the applications that I am working with requires a fairly unorthodox network configuration. This machine is running Ubuntu 8.10 with all the latest patches. This has multiple wired network interfaces. <div>
<br></div>
<div>The <span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">/etc/network/interfaces</span> file is as under:</div><div><br></div><div><div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px">auto lo</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px">iface lo inet loopback</span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px"><br>
</span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px">auto eth0</span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px">iface eth0 inet static</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px"> address 10.19.175.242</span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px"> netmask 255.255.255.240</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px"> network 10.19.175.240</span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px"> broadcast 10.19.175.255</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px"> gateway 10.19.175.241</span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px"> dns-nameservers 10.19.173.245</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px">auto eth1</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px">iface eth1 inet static</span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px"> address 192.168.164.2</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px"> netmask 255.255.252.0</span></div><div><br></div></div><div>The output of <span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">netstat -nr</span> is as under:</div>
<div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><br></span></div><div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">Kernel IP routing table</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface</span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">10.19.175.240 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.240 U 0 0 0 eth0</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">192.168.164.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 0 0 0 eth1</span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">0.0.0.0 10.19.175.241 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0</span></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The network cables from these two interfaces terminate on a Cisco 6509 switch. Another machine of interest is also connected to this switch. Pings from this other machine to the 192.168.164.2 interface are not returned. </div>
<div><br></div><div>If I were to do:</div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">$ sudo route delete default device eth0<br>
</span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">$ sudo route add default gw 192.168.164.1 device eth1 </span><br></div><div><br></div><div>then the other machine is able to ping 192.168.164.2. Of course I lose the ability to reach the 10.19.175.242 interface. </div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I tried the Fedora 10 Live distribution on the same machine. I used the NetworkManager applet to first configure eth0, checked the connectivity to that interface before configuring the eth1 interface. I lost connectivity to the eth0 interface at this point. I then did the following:</div>
<div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"># route delete default device eth1<br>
</span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace"># route add default gw 10.19.175.241 device eth0</span></div><div><br></div><div>and the routing table:</div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px"><br>
</span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">[root@localhost ~]# route </span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">Kernel IP routing table </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface</span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">10.19.175.240 * 255.255.255.240 U 1 0 0 eth0 </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">192.168.164.0 * 255.255.252.0 U 1 0 0 eth1 </span></div><div><span style="font-family:'courier new',monospace">default 10.19.175.241 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 </span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:'courier new';font-size:12px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12px"><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">And I was able to reach both the eth0 and eth1 interfaces at this point from appropriate machines on the network.</span></span></div>
<div> <br></div><div>I tried using a bootable USB Live Ubuntu 8.10, and I repeated the exact steps I had performed with the F10 and I was only able to reach one of the interfaces and not both at the same time. I can run tcpdump on the interfaces separately and I can see ICMP Requests coming in on both the interfaces but only one of the interfaces responds with an ICMP Reply. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Any idea why Ubuntu would behave differently? I'd appreciate any suggestions on what I could try so that both interfaces are reachable simultaneously.</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>Venkat. <br>
</div></div></div>
<br></div></div>_______________________________________________<br>
TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota<br>
<a href="mailto:tclug-list@mn-linux.org" target="_blank">tclug-list@mn-linux.org</a><br>
<a href="http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list" target="_blank">http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>