Playing with the routing algorithm

I'm trying to make my linux to route any out going message on two
ethernet devices.
I thought about configuring the routing table like this:

$ netstat -rn

Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window
irtt Iface
192.68.52.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
0 eth0
192.68.52.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
0 eth1
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0
0 lo

==> How can I couse any package with target 192.68.52.0 to be
delivered twise (on eth0 and eth1)?
Thanks,

ziv1003@yahoo.com (ziv) writes:

]I'm trying to make my linux to route any out going message on two
]ethernet devices.
]I thought about configuring the routing table like this:

]$ netstat -rn

]Kernel IP routing table
]Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window
]irtt Iface
]192.68.52.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
]0 eth0
]192.68.52.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
]0 eth1
]127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0
]0 lo

]==> How can I couse any package with target 192.68.52.0 to be
]delivered twise (on eth0 and eth1)?
]Thanks,

You cannot, and it makes no sense anyway.
Note that there is no target 192.168.52.0 That is a network.
anyway. A Route is a statement of how to deliver a packet, and
delivering two of them would simply confuse everything.

Also no idea why in the world you would want to.
If you told us what you are thing to accomplish rather than your ideas
about how to accomplish it, we might be more helpful.

Bill Unruh wrote:
> ziv1003@yahoo.com (ziv) writes:
>
> ]I'm trying to make my linux to route any out going message on two
> ]ethernet devices.
> ]I thought about configuring the routing table like this:
>
> ]$ netstat -rn
>
> ]Kernel IP routing table
> ]Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window
> ]irtt Iface
> ]192.68.52.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
> ]0 eth0
> ]192.68.52.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
> ]0 eth1
> ]127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0
> ]0 lo
>
> ]==> How can I couse any package with target 192.68.52.0 to be
> ]delivered twise (on eth0 and eth1)?
> ]Thanks,
>
> You cannot, and it makes no sense anyway.
> Note that there is no target 192.168.52.0 That is a network.
> anyway. A Route is a statement of how to deliver a packet, and
> delivering two of them would simply confuse everything.
>
> Also no idea why in the world you would want to.
> If you told us what you are thing to accomplish rather than your ideas
> about how to accomplish it, we might be more helpful.

Uh, oh, Bill,

With a netmask of /22 (255.255.252.0), 192.168.52.0 _is_ a valid node.
And, as for the routing table, it is _not_ confusing to define redundant
rules, but only the first one that matches will be used. - You can have
bazillions of default routes, but $((bazillion - 1)) of them will just
be ignored.

To the OP: What You're trying to do is nonsense, at least in Your ter-
minology. - You have bothe eth0 and eth1 on the same subnet, so I may
assume that You're after load balancing or similar.

Make that Your search string, "load balancing". - Two of the hits
are (1): tldp.org, and (2): lar [wossat "Linux advanced Routing"
again...?]...


Cheers, Jack.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My personal reading of the string "MicroSoft" expands to "NanoWeak"...

jack <not@all.org> wrote in message news:<c1e0on$6s2$01$1@news.t-online.com>...
> Bill Unruh wrote:
> > ziv1003@yahoo.com (ziv) writes:
> >
> > ]I'm trying to make my linux to route any out going message on two
> > ]ethernet devices.
> > ]I thought about configuring the routing table like this:
> >
> > ]$ netstat -rn
> >
> > ]Kernel IP routing table
> > ]Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window
> > ]irtt Iface
> > ]192.68.52.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
> > ]0 eth0
> > ]192.68.52.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
> > ]0 eth1
> > ]127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0
> > ]0 lo
> >
> > ]==> How can I couse any package with target 192.68.52.0 to be
> > ]delivered twise (on eth0 and eth1)?
> > ]Thanks,
> >
> > You cannot, and it makes no sense anyway.
> > Note that there is no target 192.168.52.0 That is a network.
> > anyway. A Route is a statement of how to deliver a packet, and
> > delivering two of them would simply confuse everything.
> >
> > Also no idea why in the world you would want to.
> > If you told us what you are thing to accomplish rather than your ideas
> > about how to accomplish it, we might be more helpful.
>
> Uh, oh, Bill,
>
> With a netmask of /22 (255.255.252.0), 192.168.52.0 _is_ a valid node.
> And, as for the routing table, it is _not_ confusing to define redundant
> rules, but only the first one that matches will be used. - You can have
> bazillions of default routes, but $((bazillion - 1)) of them will just
> be ignored.
>
> To the OP: What You're trying to do is nonsense, at least in Your ter-
> minology. - You have bothe eth0 and eth1 on the same subnet, so I may
> assume that You're after load balancing or similar.
>
> Make that Your search string, "load balancing". - Two of the hits
> are (1): tldp.org, and (2): lar [wossat "Linux advanced Routing"
> again...?]...
>
>
> Cheers, Jack.

I meant some thing like what Jack replied for but instead of load
balancing, I need "network redundancy"... I tried searching over the
internet and couldn't find any suitable open code to take as example.
About the address in the routing table, it's just an example for a
network that I would like that any out-going package, with target
address that belongs to that network will be actually duplicated and
delivered on both eth0 & eth1.
Thanks,
Ziv.