Networking sets up a default route to every interface

Bug #175326 reported by jshanks
2
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
network-manager (Ubuntu)
Invalid
Low
Basilio Kublik

Bug Description

Binary package hint: network-manager

I've seen similar bug reports, but wasn't sure if I should just add to them or report this one as new.

I have a test machine with two network interfaces. Gutsy detected them as eth0 and eth2 (I don't know why no eth1, but for this bug it doesn't matter).

The usual configuration for this machine is to have one network card (eth0) connected to the 172.17.x.x network and the other to the 192.168.0.x network. My router to the Internet is on the 172.17.x.x network, so I want the default route (0.0.0.0/0) to be to eth0.

Problem is, for some reason, Gutsy insists on setting up two default routes. When I look at the routing table, I have two "default" entries, one to eth0, and one to eth2. Unless I've missed something very fundamental in my networking theory, there can be only one default route (no load balancing). What's even more unnerving, is the fact that the first default route in the table always seems to be the wrong one. That may just be bad luck, but it's quite annoying.

Just a side note, I multi-boot this machine with Windows XP, RHEL 5 (soon to be 5.1) and Ubuntu. The networking works correctly with RHEL 5.0 and Windows XP.

Revision history for this message
jshanks (jim-shanks) wrote :

Forgot one thing . . .
Simply entering:
route del default
at a bash prompt does fix the problem, but it doesn't seem to work from rc.local, plus it really should be necessary.

Revision history for this message
jshanks (jim-shanks) wrote :

Whoops, I meant to type "shouldn't be necessary".

Revision history for this message
Basilio Kublik (sourcercito) wrote :

Hi there
do you still experience this issue with the current version of the application?, could you please try to reproduce this using the live environment of the Desktop CD of the development release - Hardy Heron.

Thanks in advance

Changed in network-manager:
assignee: nobody → sourcercito
importance: Undecided → Low
status: New → Incomplete
Revision history for this message
Pedro Villavicencio (pedro) wrote :

We are closing this bug report because it lacks the information we need to investigate the problem, as described in the previous comments. Please reopen it if you can give us the missing information, and don't hesitate to submit bug reports in the future. To reopen the bug report you can click on the current status, under the Status column, and change the Status back to "New". Thanks again!.

Changed in network-manager:
status: Incomplete → Invalid
Revision history for this message
jshanks (jim-shanks) wrote :

Sorry about that, I didn't see the request for more info my email. I'll have to setup a test server to see if the problem still exists, and report back.
Thanks.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.