On Tue, 5 Feb 2002, shadha wrote:
> You are correct, I'm talking abt the script in PolyMix-4 HOWTO document[1]
> only . I'm using polyser and polyclt machines.
> while creating routes using script ,it creates routes to " iface eth0,not
> for lo" , i've attched script result below...for u'r reference.
As far as I can tell, the routes look correct. The kernel has to use
"eht0" interface to get to the IP aliases on "lo" (e.g., 10.1.152.0)
via known "routing" addresses (e.g., 172.16.1.197).
Can you ping server addresses from robot aliases and vice versa? What
seems to not work?
Alex.
> [root@transquid workloads]# /sbin/route |more
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
> Iface
> 172.16.1.116 * 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 eth0
> 172.16.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
> 10.1.28.0 172.16.1.68 255.255.252.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
> 10.1.92.0 172.16.1.84 255.255.252.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
> 10.1.152.0 172.16.1.197 255.255.252.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
> 10.1.216.0 172.16.1.213 255.255.252.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
> 10.1.24.0 172.16.1.67 255.255.252.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
> 10.1.88.0 172.16.1.83 255.255.252.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
> 10.1.156.0 172.16.1.198 255.255.252.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
> 10.1.220.0 172.16.1.214 255.255.252.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
> 10.1.20.0 172.16.1.66 255.255.252.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
> 10.1.84.0 172.16.1.82 255.255.252.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
> 10.1.144.0 172.16.1.195 255.255.252.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 06 2006 - 12:00:21 MST