Network route problem

[Kevin Martin]

On 01/07/2012 11:49 AM, Luc MAIGNAN wrote:
>
> 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
What type of device is 50.2? Is it a switch of some kind?

Kevin