netdev - Re: Source routing without rules?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <521D4AFD.2000102@hp.com>
Date:	Tue, 27 Aug 2013 20:57:33 -0400
From:	Brian Haley <brian.haley@...com>
To:	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC:	Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Source routing without rules?

On 08/27/2013 08:16 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I'm about to implement a trivial source routing policy for the third
> time, and this is IMO stupid.  I want to have two routes to a network.
>  Each route should specify a src, and, if the flow matches the src,
> then that route should win.
> 
> The rules that don't work are:
> 
> ip route add <net> via <gw1> dev <dev1> metric 0
> ip route add <net> via <gw2> dev <dev2> src <dev2addr> metric 10
> 
> Even if I bind a socket to dev2addr, the outgoing packets go out dev1
> to gw1.  This is exactly what I don't want to have happen.

Look at this page on routing rules:

http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.html

-Brian
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html