Bug 1470045

Summary: Feature: Support policy-based routing / Separate routing-tables per interfaces/defaultroutes
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Stefan Neufeind <redhat>
Component: initscriptsAssignee: Lukáš Nykrýn <lnykryn>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 31CC: jonathan, kdudka, lnykryn, zbyszek
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Reopened
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-11-30 13:46:25 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Stefan Neufeind 2017-07-12 10:39:04 UTC
Linux itself supports multiple routing-tables. But the init-scripts don't yet know such a parameter per-interface or for the defaultroutes.

With multiple tables it would be easy to have a server multihomed on two networks and use the correct defaultroute via either interface depending on the ip/interface used.

Comment 1 Stefan Neufeind 2017-07-12 10:39:38 UTC
Random example:
http://www.microhowto.info/howto/ensure_symmetric_routing_on_a_server_with_multiple_default_gateways.html

[...]
The table for eth0 should route traffic via the gateway at 198.51.100.1 if it cannot be delivered directly:

ip route add 198.51.100.0/24 dev eth0 table 1
ip route add default via 198.51.100.1 table 1

whereas the table for eth1 should use the gateway at 203.0.113.1:

ip route add 203.0.113.0/24 dev eth1 table 2
ip route add default via 203.0.113.1 table 2
[...]

Comment 2 Stefan Neufeind 2017-07-12 10:43:34 UTC
I forgot to add to the example of course policy-rules are needed as well (as documented in that howto):
ip rule add from 198.51.100.87/32 table 1 priority 100
ip rule add from 203.0.113.144/32 table 2 priority 110

Comment 3 Jan Kurik 2017-08-15 07:06:24 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 27 development cycle.
Changing version to '27'.

Comment 5 Ben Cotton 2018-11-27 13:42:15 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 27 is nearing its end of life.
On 2018-Nov-30  Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for
Fedora 27. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases
that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as
EOL if it remains open with a Fedora  'version' of '27'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 27 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 6 Ben Cotton 2019-10-31 20:27:31 UTC
This message is a reminder that Fedora 29 is nearing its end of life.
Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 29 on 2019-11-26.
It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer
maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as EOL if it remains open with a
Fedora 'version' of '29'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version.

Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we were not 
able to fix it before Fedora 29 is end of life. If you would still like 
to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version 
of Fedora, you are encouraged  change the 'version' to a later Fedora 
version prior this bug is closed as described in the policy above.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

Comment 7 Ben Cotton 2019-11-27 20:01:45 UTC
Fedora 29 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2019-11-26. Fedora 29 is
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. If you
are unable to reopen this bug, please file a new report against the
current release. If you experience problems, please add a comment to this
bug.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.

Comment 8 Stefan Neufeind 2019-11-28 14:12:59 UTC
Does it make sense to reopen this issue? Does it have a chance to be considered for Fedora or RHEL?

Comment 9 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek 2019-11-30 13:46:25 UTC
systemd-networkd now has support for multiple routing tables. I'm not sure about NetworkManager.
But there is no chance of this being implemented in network initscripts. Let's close this.