[LARTC] A complicated routing scenario (for me at least)

[Mike Fedyk mfedyk@matchmail.com]

<PRE>Arthur van Leeuwen wrote:
&gt;<i> 
</I>&gt;<i> On Thu, 16 Nov 2000, Andrew wrote:
</I>&gt;<i> 
</I>&gt;<i> &gt; Hey, I'm working on the rules and routes to implement what I've been talking
</I>&gt;<i> &gt; about, and I've got a small question about the ip rule add.
</I>&gt;<i> 
</I>&gt;<i> &gt; I'm trying to add a blackhole route, and ip rule add seems to insist that I
</I>&gt;<i> &gt; provide a lookup table with the route.
</I>&gt;<i> &gt;
</I>&gt;<i> &gt; For instance If I execute the command:
</I>&gt;<i> &gt;
</I>&gt;<i> &gt; &quot;ip rule add from 0.0.0.0/0 type blackhole.&quot;
</I>&gt;<i> &gt;
</I>&gt;<i> &gt; when I look at what it did with &quot;ip rule ls&quot; I see
</I>&gt;<i> &gt;
</I>&gt;<i> &gt; &quot;from all lookup main blackhole&quot;
</I>&gt;<i> 
</I>&gt;<i> Try using   ip rule add priority 256 from 0.0.0.0/0 type blackhole
</I>&gt;<i> 
</I>&gt;<i> Doei, Arthur. (There's some hints as to the priority being required in the
</I>&gt;<i>                IP command reference)
</I>
ip rule add lookup 256 from 0.0.0.0/0 type blackhole

or replace &quot;lookup&quot; with &quot;table&quot;, same thing.

If you use priority, you are affecting the location of that rule in the rule
search.  In the above case, it should blackhole everything, unless there are any
&quot;ip rule&quot;s with a priority below 256.  This is in theory, I didn't want to try
it on my one linux box.


</PRE>