Network route problem

[Luc MAIGNAN]

Le 07/01/2012 18:39, Kevin Martin a écrit :
>
> On 01/07/2012 11:30 AM, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
>> 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
> Can you show a "traceroute 172.16.2.6" when you've got the tunnel up?
>
> Kevin

traceroute to 172.16.2.6 (172.16.2.6), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
  1  192.168.50.2 (192.168.50.2)  0.187 ms  0.166 ms  0.154 ms
  2  192.168.50.184 (192.168.50.184)  0.545 ms  0.600 ms  0.603 ms
  3  * * *
  4  172.16.2.6 (172.16.2.6)  5.958 ms  4.324 ms  4.390 ms

It should use directly 50.184 and not first 50.2

Luc