On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 13:48 +0100, j.halifax . wrote: > > I think the problem is probably the routing tables in the other boxes > > in the same LAN (e.g. 10.255.250.38) > > route in 10.255.250.38: > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface > 192.168.122.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 virbr0 > 10.255.250.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 > link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 > default 10.255.250.37 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 > > traceroute -n 172.17.1.50 (from 10.255.250.38): > traceroute to 172.17.1.50 (172.17.1.50), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets > 1 10.255.250.37 0.194 ms 0.124 ms 0.120 ms > 2 195.39.130.92 3000.438 ms !H 3000.449 ms !H 3000.427 ms !H > > The request comes to the LAN default GW and fells through to > its default GW eth0 leading to Internet, instead of going to eth3 > > :(( > Thank you... > jh > > I'm still stumped. What happens if you try to "ping" from the eth2 interface of the router? ping -I 10.255.250.37 172.17.1.50 I guess the following is equivalent: ping -I eth2 172.17.1.50 I expect this ping to fail. I am still suspicious iptables is involved. If your router had periods of time when there was no traffic, I would do iptables -L -v to get the packet counts for every iptables rule, do the ping from the PC that fails, and do iptables -L -v again and compare the packet counts for every iptables rule, to determine which iptables rules were being used for the ping packets. -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
