[11:15] I've set up a route with netplan on one of our servers but I can't ping theserver its connected to via that route [11:17] Can anyonespot any problems with this config? [11:17] https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/TTNsykwf4s/ [11:17] The route shows up correctly under `ip r` and `route` [11:19] Ah! Looks like I've got to: and via: the wrong way round [11:31] Are there no tools to help with netplan config yet? I'd like something like nmtui for netplan [11:34] Swapping ther to: and via: values hasn't fixed my problem. I now wondering if its a formatting issue [11:34] Or if I've inserted the route in the wrong section [11:36] danboid: how do you reach 192.168.10.1 ? [11:38] Here's theroute output from the machne its connecting to (which is using network-manager) [11:38] https://paste.ubuntu.com/p/tNBM7FrMph/ [11:39] I can ping thetarget machine from that, but not the other way around [11:39] schopin: Its a 10Gb fibre link [11:40] You mean that from the machine that is 192.168.10.1 you cannot ping your netplan-configured machine? Which IP are you using for the failing ping? [11:40] Because there's no route from your /30 subnetwork to your global network. [11:42] Ah OK, I need to add another route [11:44] I'm trying to ping 192.168.10.1 [11:46] I don't seem to have a route from my /30 network to my global network on either box [11:46] What would you suggest that would look like? [11:47] ie what woukld the to: and via: values be andwhere do I put them? [11:47] to: would be 0.0.0.0 ? [11:47] You don't want to route your /30 to the Internet. [11:48] No, I don't [11:48] Well, that's basically what you're asking for :) [11:49] So I route it to thesame gateway as my other interface then? [11:50] No, if you want your /30 to be able to communicate with the Internet you need to do some NAT-ing on your server. [11:50] I don't think netplan can do that for you. [11:50] I don't want that. The /30 isa private network with one other host on it [11:51] Yes, I understand that. And the IPs in your /30 cannot leak to the outside world. [11:51] You said I was missing a route? [11:51] From the/30 to my global netywork [11:51] If both of your networks were using public IPs yes you would be missing a route from your /30 to your /24 [11:52] BUT you shouldn't use routing to connect your /30 to the Internet. [11:53] the /30 doesn't need to be on the net [11:54] OK, so you just want the machines on your /24 to be able to ping the private IPs in your /30 ? [11:54] Yes [11:54] Erm no [11:55] I've got two servers [11:55] Both have a /24 address, on the net [11:55] Both also havea 2nd nic (SFP) with a /30 address and I want to usethat to transfer files netween the two [11:56] OK, what do you need routing for then? The default on-link route that comes with the static address definition should be enough. [11:57] When you add 192.168.10.1/30 to an interface, you automatically add a route to 192.168.10.0/30 via this interface. [11:58] I was unable to ping the other machine plus theSFP nic didn't show under route on the netplan box without adding the route manually. On the network-manager both everything 'just worked' (TM) [11:59] I'm thinking I should switch them both tio network-manager. Its much easier than netplan [11:59] I'm only trying tio use netplan becauseitsthedefault in Ubuntu [12:00] danboid: have you checked that ens5f0 is up and has the correct address? [12:02] schopin: Yes, ens5f0 is fine according to both ethtool and `ip a` [12:03] Correct address and link is up [12:04] And yet when you write `ip r` you don't find `192.168.10.0/24 dev enf5s0 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.10.2 metric 100` ? [12:06] (hem, that'd be 192.168.10.0/30 of course) [12:06] No, that is on both [12:07] The difference being I had to manually add a route to get that on the netplan box whilst on the nm machine it was already there [12:08] I can ping from the nm box to the other /30 address but not the otherway around [12:08] You shouldn't *need* to add a route to get the output I quoted. [12:10] OK, I'm going to removethe route from netplan, andtry it again to makesure I wasn't imagining it [12:10] so this is just .10.1 (nm) and .10.2 (netplan) which should be able to talk, right? [12:10] Yes [12:11] btw, my favourite debugging tool is `ip route get 192.168.10.1` [12:11] in particular, it will tell you what source address and interface the kernel will choose [12:12] I'dalready tried that and I think the output is correct [12:13] well then... perhaps a local firewall? [12:20] OK, I got rid of the manually added route on the netplan machine but yes, the route is still there [12:20] After rebooting [12:20] So I presume thats a good sign [12:20] but I still can't ping the other machine [12:21] feel free to share the `ip route get X` output :) [12:22] $ ip route get 192.168.10.1 [12:22] 192.168.10.1 dev ens5f0 src 192.168.10.2 uid 1000 [12:22] cache [12:22] cache , hmmm [12:23] Might I need to clear the arp cache? [12:24] well, check arp -n and see if there is anything relevant? [12:24] I would whip out tcpdump at this point. [12:25] $ arp -n [12:25] Address HWtype HWaddress Flags Mask Iface [12:25] 146.87.15.1 ether 00:08:e3:ff:fc:78 C bond0 [12:25] 192.168.10.1 ether 14:18:77:5c:29:5c C ens5f0 [12:26] Here's the route outpu on the other machinethat can ping [12:26] $ route [12:26] Kernel IP routing table [12:26] Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface [12:26] default 146.87.15.1 0.0.0.0 UG 100 0 0 eth5 [12:26] 146.87.15.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 100 0 0 eth5 [12:26] link-local * 255.255.255.0 U 100 0 0 idrac [12:26] link-local * 255.255.0.0 U 1000 0 0 eth5 [12:26] 192.168.10.0 * 255.255.255.252 U 100 0 0 eth7 [12:27] Dodgy machine: [12:27] $ route [12:27] Kernel IP routing table [12:27] Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface [12:27] default _gateway 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 bond0 [12:27] 146.87.15.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 bond0 [12:27] 192.168.10.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.252 U 0 0 0 ens5f0 [12:28] What does a * mean? [12:29] Why don't I have any link-local routes on netplan? [12:30] I presume thats what I need to replicate with netplan? [12:31] are you absolutely sure it's not a local firewall? [12:31] I could be, I'm not thenetwork guy here, as I think you can tell :) [12:32] He thinks it should beconfigured correctly but... doesn't seem so [12:32] Oh you mean ufw [12:32] or iptables [12:32] yeah [12:33] ufw / iptables is disabled [12:34] on the machine I'm having probswith [12:34] No comment on those link-local routes I get under nm but not netplan? [12:36] I'm not really familiar with the `route` output myself, so I can't really explain what's going on, but 0.0.0.0 is definitely not a valid gateway. [12:36] danboid: you need to check on the "working" machine