[LARTC] incompabilities with different routing tables and ipv6?

[LARTC] incompabilities with different routing tables and ipv6?

[Gabriel Paues]

Hello!

I've checked in the LARTC-guide on how to let different traffic take
different routes depending on the port. I've managed to do the same for
the TOS-flag. Now I want to do the same thing with IPv6. When I try to
add a new default gateway to the table host2.out I do the following:

# echo 201 host2.out >> /etc/iproute2/rt_tables
# ip rule add fwmark 1 table host2.out
# ip -6 route add default via fec0::195.96.98.253 dev eth1 table
host2.out

The interesting part is the last statement. I want to use different
tables with IPv6. When I do:
# ip -6 route ls table host2.out
it returns nothing
When I do:
# ip -6 route add default via fec0::195.96.98.253 dev eth1 table
host2.out
I get:
RNETLINK: File already exists

My conclusion is that somehow the entry is registred but wont show. My
question is:

Is there any incompabilities between different routing tables and IPv6?

Sincerily,

Gabriel Paues
Swedish Institue of Computer Science

_______________________________________________
LARTC mailing list / LARTC@mailman.ds9a.nl
http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/