?
Solved

IP Rule not properly sending Traffic over a certain Ethernet Port

Posted on 2015-01-28
15
Medium Priority
?
173 Views
Last Modified: 2015-07-03
I  have server that has a 10g card in it. I need to configure that server so that for a particular IP address (172.16.2.62) 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 172.16.2.62 [17:13:01] shock:~ # ip rule show |grep 172.16.2.62

60: from all to 172.16.2.62 lookup eth4

61: from all to 172.16.2.62 lookup eth3

However it seems that only the rule for Eth4 is being implemented [17:13:45] shock:~ # ip route get 172.16.2.62

172.16.2.62 via 172.16.1.1 dev eth4 src 172.16.2.177

cache  mtu 1500 advmss 1460 hoplimit 64
As you can see ping will not go out Eth3 to 172.16.2.62

[17:18:02] shock:~ # ping -I eth3 172.16.2.62

PING 172.16.2.62 (172.16.2.62) from 172.16.2.175 eth3: 56(84) bytes of data. ^C --- 172.16.2.62 ping statistics --- 8 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 7707ms

[17:18:54] shock:~ # ping -I eth4 172.16.2.62

PING 172.16.2.62 (172.16.2.62) from 172.16.2.177 eth4: 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 172.16.2.62: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=3.96 ms

Yet Eth3 works for other IPs not setup in the Rules (Notice I am pinging 172.16.1.1 and not 172.16.2.62)

[17:21:02] shock:~ # ping -I eth3 172.16.1.1

PING 172.16.1.1 (172.16.1.1) from 172.16.2.175 eth3: 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 172.16.1.1: 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 172.16.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0

172.16.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1

172.16.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth2

172.16.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth3

172.16.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth4

172.16.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth5

172.16.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth6

0.0.0.0 172.16.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0

[17:25:49] shock:~ # ip route show table main

172.16.0.0/16 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 172.16.2.170

172.16.0.0/16 dev eth1 proto kernel scope link src 172.16.2.174

172.16.0.0/16 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 172.16.2.184

172.16.0.0/16 dev eth3 proto kernel scope link src 172.16.2.175

172.16.0.0/16 dev eth4 proto kernel scope link src 172.16.2.177

172.16.0.0/16 dev eth5 proto kernel scope link src 172.16.2.179

172.16.0.0/16 dev eth6 proto kernel scope link src 172.16.2.178

default via 172.16.1.1 dev eth0

Thanks in advance for your help
0
Comment
Question by:langdj
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange

Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.

  • Help others & share knowledge
  • Earn cash & points
  • Learn & ask questions
  • 6
  • 6
15 Comments
 
LVL 62

Expert Comment

by:gheist
ID: 40579194
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
0
 

Author Comment

by:langdj
ID: 40580350
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
0
 
LVL 62

Assisted Solution

by:gheist
gheist earned 2000 total points
ID: 40580508
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.
0
Looking for the Wi-Fi vendor that's right for you?

We know how difficult it can be to evaluate Wi-Fi vendors, so we created this helpful Wi-Fi Buyer's Guide to help you find the Wi-Fi vendor that's right for your business! Download the guide and get started on our checklist today!

 

Author Comment

by:langdj
ID: 40841254
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?
0
 
LVL 62

Expert Comment

by:gheist
ID: 40841255
We cannot help you hack the embedded firmware even it is based on CentOS.
0
 

Author Comment

by:langdj
ID: 40849348
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
0
 
LVL 62

Expert Comment

by:gheist
ID: 40849524
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.
0
 

Accepted Solution

by:
langdj earned 0 total points
ID: 40849930
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.
0
 
LVL 62

Expert Comment

by:gheist
ID: 40849991
Supported interfaces are: adding routes per interface and configuring VLAN trunking.
0
 

Author Comment

by:langdj
ID: 40851673
I've requested that this question be deleted for the following reason:

Comments in question. Back and forth becoming a distraction
0
 
LVL 62

Expert Comment

by:gheist
ID: 40851674
Sorry, http:#a40580508 is final answer. (while the very first is for real CentOS/RHEL)
0
 

Author Comment

by:langdj
ID: 40865816
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 172.26.0.0/24 via 172.26.1.1 dev eth3 table main
ip route add 172.26.0.0/24 via 172.26.1.1 dev eth3 table eth3
ip rule add from all to 172.26.0.0/24 lookup eth3 priority 90
ip rule add from 172.26.0.0/24 lookup eth3 priority 90
0

Featured Post

Create the perfect environment for any meeting

You might have a modern environment with all sorts of high-tech equipment, but what makes it worthwhile is how you seamlessly bring together the presentation with audio, video and lighting. The ATEN Control System provides integrated control and system automation.

Question has a verified solution.

If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question

The use of stolen credentials is a hot commodity this year allowing threat actors to move laterally within the network in order to avoid breach detection.
Is your computer hacked? learn how to detect and delete malware in your PC
In this video we outline the Physical Segments view of NetCrunch network monitor. By following this brief how-to video, you will be able to learn how NetCrunch visualizes your network, how granular is the information collected, as well as where to f…
Monitoring a network: how to monitor network services and why? Michael Kulchisky, MCSE, MCSA, MCP, VTSP, VSP, CCSP outlines the philosophy behind service monitoring and why a handshake validation is critical in network monitoring. Software utilized …
Suggested Courses

719 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.

Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.

Join & Ask a Question