Network route problem

[Luc MAIGNAN]

Yes, 50.184 is another box on the network on which the tunnel has been 
setup via racoon.
On 50.184 the access to 172.16.2.6 works fine. ANd I want to use 50.184 
as a gateway for this host on the network.

What email address have I to use to do not top post ?



Le 07/01/2012 17:53, Kevin Martin a écrit :
>
> On 01/07/2012 10:46 AM, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
>> 192.168.50.184 is a gateway on which a IPSEC tunnel allow to access to host 172.16.2.6
>>
>>
>>
>> Le 07/01/2012 17:45, Kevin Martin a écrit :
>>> On 01/07/2012 10:18 AM, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I have the following problem.
>>>>
>>>> Here is the output of : route -n :
>>>>
>>>> 0.0.0.0                192.168.50.2        0.0.0.0         UG    0      0        0 eth0
>>>> 169.254.0.0        0.0.0.0                 255.255.0.0     U     1002   0        0 eth0
>>>> 172.16.2.6          192.168.50.184  255.255.255.255 UGH   0      0        0 eth0
>>>> 192.168.50.0       0.0.0.0                 255.255.255.0   U     0      0        0 eth0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I try to ping 172.16.2.6, it doesn't work while the first available route is used (0.0.0.0 via 192.168.50.2)
>>>>
>>>> How can I modify the order of the route table to force use of the right route ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for any help
>>> What is 192.168.50.184?  From the routing table, its the same ethernet nic so it's no wonder the route to 172.16.2.6 is using the
>>> 0.0.0.0 (default) route (even though it looks like you've tried to force it to a different route).  If you want to split the
>>> 192.168.50 network you'll need two nics, you'll need to set the netmask correctly to split it between them, then you will be able to
>>> set the 172.16.2.6 host to route a different way.
>>>
>>> Kevin
> So the 50.184 address is another box which you have an ipsec tunnel to from the machine that this network route is on?  How are you
> creating the tunnel?
>
> And please don't top post, it makes it hard to consistently read the thread.
>
> Kevin