Network route problem

[Luc MAIGNAN]

Le 07/01/2012 18:21, Kevin Martin a écrit :
>
> On 01/07/2012 11:01 AM, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
>> 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
> Do you have ip forwarding turned on on the host that you are trying to route over the tunnel (the one with the 172.16.2.6 route)?
> And not top-posting (or bottom posting) is simply done by posting your replies at the bottom of the thread, not the top. That way
> people can read from top-to-bottom of a thread (like a book). Makes the threads much easier to follow then top posting (the
> Microsoft Outlook default).
>
> Kevin

Yes the ip forwarding is enabled.
With the route table I've described, I am directed on 50.2 and If I 
place on it the route to 172.16.2.6 via gw 50.184 it works.
But I consider that It is not necessary to pass via 50.2
It is why I search a way to modify the routage table