IP Rule not properly sending Traffic over a certain Ethernet Port

I  have server that has a 10g card in it. I need to configure that server so that for a particular IP address ( traffic goes over two 10g Ports. Here are the rules I have created for that purpose. If I do not setup a rule all traffic will go to Eth0 by default.

Rules for [17:13:01] shock:~ # ip rule show |grep

60: from all to lookup eth4

61: from all to lookup eth3

However it seems that only the rule for Eth4 is being implemented [17:13:45] shock:~ # ip route get via dev eth4 src

cache  mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64
As you can see ping will not go out Eth3 to

[17:18:02] shock:~ # ping -I eth3

PING ( from eth3: 56(84) bytes of data. ^C --- ping statistics --- 8 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 7707ms

[17:18:54] shock:~ # ping -I eth4

PING ( from eth4: 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=3.96 ms

Yet Eth3 works for other IPs not setup in the Rules (Notice I am pinging and not

[17:21:02] shock:~ # ping -I eth3

PING ( from eth3: 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=0.438 ms

Lastly here is the routing Table.

[17:24:27] shock:~ # netstat -rn Kernel IP routing table

Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface U 0 0 0 eth0 U 0 0 0 eth1 U 0 0 0 eth2 U 0 0 0 eth3 U 0 0 0 eth4 U 0 0 0 eth5 U 0 0 0 eth6 UG 0 0 0 eth0

[17:25:49] shock:~ # ip route show table main dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src dev eth3 proto kernel scope link src dev eth4 proto kernel scope link src dev eth5 proto kernel scope link src dev eth6 proto kernel scope link src

default via dev eth0

Thanks in advance for your help
Who is Participating?
langdjConnect With a Mentor Author Commented:
Gheist. My point is I did get it to work. I mentioned earlier that it was an issue with the rules that was figured out. IP rules no machine code changes necessary.
All the IPs are on same subnet. Does it really matter which IP is being used?

Reading through your superlong post i just have one advice:
$ locate bonding.txt
langdjAuthor Commented:
In an effort to make my answer short I did not mention that this is an IBM SVC with limited networking. A locked down CentOS with no bonding support. It is an issue with my rules actually which has been figured out. (I needed a rule coming back not just going out) Thanks for your help
The new generation of project management tools

With monday.com’s project management tool, you can see what everyone on your team is working in a single glance. Its intuitive dashboards are customizable, so you can create systems that work for you.

gheistConnect With a Mentor Commented:
Why you are trying to make pigs fly?
IBM SVC documentation for
SAN Volume Controller release V7.4.0.2 (code level 103.21.1412180000 )
Says it supports port trunking and VLANs
What you do is unsupported, there is no CentOS, and you are not solving a problem. You are just introducing one.
langdjAuthor Commented:
I've requested that this question be closed as follows:

Accepted answer: 0 points for langdj's comment #a40580350

for the following reason:

Question not Solved. Not sure why Expert Exchange would make me close this?
We cannot help you hack the embedded firmware even it is based on CentOS.
langdjAuthor Commented:
I work closely  with SVC. And the the advise I was giving back was incorrect . I appreciate that the person was trying to help me. My thought is that it seems silly that I would be asked to "close" a question that was never answered.  There should be an option for "never answered" if you want true metrics
You get no support modifying IBM machine code. Even hearing "it will not work" is not pleasant to your ear it is the only true answer.
Supported interfaces are: adding routes per interface and configuring VLAN trunking.
langdjAuthor Commented:
I've requested that this question be deleted for the following reason:

Comments in question. Back and forth becoming a distraction
Sorry, http:#a40580508 is final answer. (while the very first is for real CentOS/RHEL)
langdjAuthor Commented:
Mr Wolfe,

The solution was that a custom network script needed to be be written on the target SVC with routes back to the source. This was necessary because the version of SVC I am using does not support bonding, VLANS or trunking (as stated earlier) and thus I was  "required to make pigs to fly" Here is the example code back to the host that correct the issue

ip route add via dev eth3 table main
ip route add via dev eth3 table eth3
ip rule add from all to lookup eth3 priority 90
ip rule add from lookup eth3 priority 90
All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.