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.
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 [...]
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
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 27 development cycle. Changing version to '27'.
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 It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.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.
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 It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained.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.
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.
Does it make sense to reopen this issue? Does it have a chance to be considered for Fedora or RHEL?
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.