Routing weird IPs
Paulo Santos
We have an Asterisk PBX running on Debian with 1 NIC. We're adding a SIP
trunk and, for that, the ISP/ITSP installed a router/gateway (I think
that's what it is).
They've told me I needed to have configuration like this:
PBX IP: 10.120.43.153
Gateway: 10.120.43.158
Netmask: 255.255.255.248
Plus this routes:
10.0.0.0 /255.0.0.0 - 10.120.43.158
62.48.163.64/255.224.0.0 - 10.200.34.158
192.168.168.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
I also need the PBX be in the our network as well, 192.168.0.200. For
that I created an alias and now I have my interfaces like this:
auto eth0
iface eth0 inet static
address 192.168.0.200
netmask 255.255.255.0
network 192.168.0.0
broadcast 192.168.0.255
gateway 192.168.0.254
auto eth0:0
iface eth0:0 inet static
address 10.120.43.153
netmask 255.255.255.248
gateway 10.120.43.158
I've added the 10.0.0.0 route fine:
route add -net 10.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 gw 10.120.43.158
But when I try any of the other 2, I get:
route: bogus netmask 255.225.255.192
Usage: ...
Or:
route: netmask doesn't match route address
Usage: ...
I've tried with "-host" as well and got:
route: netmask 001fffff doesn't make sense with host route
Usage: ...
Does anyone knows what's wrong or what do they mean by those configs?
Best regards,
Paulo Santos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4E301A6E...@sapo.pt
Ivan Shmakov
[…]
> Plus this routes:
> 10.0.0.0 /255.0.0.0 - 10.120.43.158
> 62.48.163.64/255.224.0.0 - 10.200.34.158
> 192.168.168.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
The last one should probably be as follows instead:
192.168.160.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
[…]
--
FSF associate member #7257
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/86sjprn...@gray.siamics.net
Paulo Santos
> Paulo Santos<paulo.r...@sapo.pt> writes:
>> ...
>> 192.168.168.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
>
> The last one should probably be as follows instead:
>
> 192.168.160.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
Why is that?
I tried it, though, but I get the same behaviour.
Best regards,
Paulo Santos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
François TOURDE
Paulo Santos écrivait:
> Hello list,
>
> We have an Asterisk PBX running on Debian with 1 NIC. We're adding a
> SIP trunk and, for that, the ISP/ITSP installed a router/gateway (I
> think that's what it is).
>
> They've told me I needed to have configuration like this:
[... some config details ...]
Please, re-check your mail, because of probably lot of typo errors...
> Plus this routes:
>
> 10.0.0.0 /255.0.0.0 - 10.120.43.158
> 62.48.163.64/255.224.0.0 - 10.200.34.158
> 192.168.168.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
If your syntax is "ip/mask - gateway", then the second line use a
gateway not in your ip range (10.200... vs 10.120...), or this is a typo
error.
> I also need the PBX be in the our network as well, 192.168.0.200. For
> that I created an alias and now I have my interfaces like this:
>
> auto eth0
> iface eth0 inet static
> address 192.168.0.200
> netmask 255.255.255.0
> network 192.168.0.0
> broadcast 192.168.0.255
> gateway 192.168.0.254
>
> auto eth0:0
> iface eth0:0 inet static
> address 10.120.43.153
> netmask 255.255.255.248
> gateway 10.120.43.158
You can't have 2 gateway lines, because gateway is equiv to "route
default", and you can't have 2 default destinations.
> But when I try any of the other 2, I get:
>
> route: bogus netmask 255.225.255.192
> Usage: ...
Look at the "225" instead of "255" in the second byte of the netmask. Is
it a typo error?
Please use cut and paste of your commands and the results in your next
mail, to avoid errors and to permit a good diagnosis.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/871uxb8...@fermat.tourde.home
Ivan Shmakov
>>>>> Ivan Shmakov wrote:
>>>>> Paulo Santos<paulo.r...@sapo.pt> writes:
>>> 192.168.168.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
>> The last one should probably be as follows instead:
>> 192.168.160.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
> Why is that?
> I tried it, though, but I get the same behaviour.
Apparently, my eye has slipped. There's no issue with this
IP/netmask pair. Rather, I see the issue with the other one:
>>> 62.48.163.64/255.224.0.0 - 10.200.34.158
It's the convention to have the masked-out bits of a network IP
address to be zero. And my guess is that route(8) may fail with
the following if this convention isn't followed:
>>> route: netmask doesn't match route address
In this case:
62.48.163.64 00111110 00110000 10100011 01000000
255.224.0.0 11111111 11100000 00000000 00000000
So, it should've probably been as follows instead:
--
FSF associate member #7257
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/867h73m...@gray.siamics.net
Paulo Santos
First of all, than you everyone for the replies.
François TOURDE wrote:
> Le 15182ième jour après Epoch,
> Paulo Santos écrivait:
>> Plus this routes:
>>
>> 10.0.0.0 /255.0.0.0 - 10.120.43.158
>> 62.48.163.64/255.224.0.0 - 10.200.34.158
>> 192.168.168.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
>
> If your syntax is "ip/mask - gateway", then the second line use a
> gateway not in your ip range (10.200... vs 10.120...), or this is a typo
> error.
It is "IP/Mask - Gateway". Those 3 lines are a copy&paste of the email
the provider sent me. Seeing it is impossible for the 2nd line to work,
I'll contact them to clarify it.
> You can't have 2 gateway lines, because gateway is equiv to "route
> default", and you can't have 2 default destinations.
Ok. I'll correct that in the end of the day, since it's in production I
can't restart the network.
>> But when I try any of the other 2, I get:
>>
>> route: bogus netmask 255.225.255.192
>> Usage: ...
>
> Look at the "225" instead of "255" in the second byte of the netmask. Is
> it a typo error?
Indeed it is a typo made when executing the command. Correcting it
worked, the route was added.
Best regards,
Paulo Santos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
François TOURDE
Paulo Santos écrivait:
>> You can't have 2 gateway lines, because gateway is equiv to "route
>> default", and you can't have 2 default destinations.
>
> Ok. I'll correct that in the end of the day, since it's in production I
> can't restart the network.
You don't need to restart the network. Check the default routes actives
using "ip route", and then delete the wrong one with "ip route del <your
bad route>"
Hope this help.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878vriw...@fermat.tourde.home
Paulo Santos
> François TOURDE wrote:
>> Le 15182ième jour après Epoch, Paulo Santos écrivait:
>>> Plus this routes:
>>>
>>> 10.0.0.0 /255.0.0.0 - 10.120.43.158 62.48.163.64/255.224.0.0 -
>>> 10.200.34.158 192.168.168.0/255.255.255.192 - 10.120.43.158
>>
>> If your syntax is "ip/mask - gateway", then the second line use a
>> gateway not in your ip range (10.200... vs 10.120...), or this is a
>> typo error.
>
> It is "IP/Mask - Gateway". Those 3 lines are a copy&paste of the
> email the provider sent me. Seeing it is impossible for the 2nd line
> to work, I'll contact them to clarify it.
Well, it was an error from the provider afterall. Everything should be
OK now.
10.200.34.152/29 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 10.200.34.153
62.48.163.64/27 via 10.200.34.158 dev eth0
192.168.168.0/26 via 10.200.34.158 dev eth0
192.168.0.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.0.202
10.0.0.0/8 via 10.200.34.158 dev eth0
default via 192.168.0.254 dev eth0
If it doesn't work, it probably is something else other than routes.
unruh wrote:
>>> You can't have 2 gateway lines, because gateway is equiv to
>>> "route default", and you can't have 2 default destinations.
> ?? I do not think I agree. The gateway simply says -- if you get an
> address that matches the route, send the packet on to the gateway to
> deal with it. It is NOT the equivalent of a default route (which is--
> if the address does not match anything else in the route, ship it on
> to default gateway to deal with). A specific gateway is not
> equivalent to a default gateway.
In that case, having it declared in the interfaces is the same as
configuring a route manually, right?
Best regards,
Paulo Santos
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-us...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listm...@lists.debian.org