Università degli Studi Roma Tre

Dipartimento di Ingegneria
Computer Networks Research Group

kathara lab
static-routing

Version 1.0
Author(s) G. Di Battista, M. Patrignani, M. Pizzonia, F. Ricci, M.
Rimondini

E-mail [email protected]
Web http://www.kathara.org/
Description an example of configuration of static routes –
kathara version of netkit lab static-routing vers. 2.2
© Computer Networks Research
Group Roma Tre
 Copyright notice
 All the pages/slides in this presentation, including but not limited to, images, photos, animations,
videos, sounds, music, and text (hereby referred to as “material”) are protected by copyright.
 This material, with the exception of some multimedia elements licensed by other organizations, is
property of the authors and/or organizations appearing in the first slide.
 This material, or its parts, can be reproduced and used for didactical purposes within universities and
schools, provided that this happens for non-profit purposes.
 Information contained in this material cannot be used within network design projects or other products
of any kind.
 Any other use is prohibited, unless explicitly authorized by the authors on the basis of an explicit
agreement.
 The authors assume no responsibility about this material and provide this material “as is”, with no
implicit or explicit warranty about the correctness and completeness of its contents, which may be
subject to changes.
 This copyright notice must always be redistributed together with the material, or its portions.

© Computer Networks Research

Group Roma Tre kathara – [ lab: static routing ] last update: Nov 2019
 step 1 – network topology
high level view

pc1 pc2

195.11.14.0/24 200.1.1.0/24

r1 100.0.0.8/30 r2

© Computer Networks Research

Group Roma Tre kathara – [ lab: static routing ] last update: Nov 2019
 step 1 – network topology
configuration details
pc1 pc2

.5 eth0 eth0 .7

collision domain A collision domain C

195.11.14.0/24 200.1.1.0/24

.1 eth0 eth0 .1
collision domain B
r1 r2
eth1 100.0.0.8/30 eth1
.9 .10

© Computer Networks Research

Group Roma Tre kathara – [ lab: static routing ] last update: Nov 2019
 step 2 – the lab
 lab directory hierarchy
 lab.conf
 pc1/
 pc1.startup
 pc2/
 pc2.startup
 r1/
 r1.startup
 r2/
 r2.startup

© Computer Networks Research

Group Roma Tre kathara – [ lab: static routing ] last update: Nov 2019
 step 2 – the lab
lab.conf
r1[0]=A
r1[1]=B

r2[0]=C
r2[1]=B

pc1[0]=A
pc2[0]=C

pc1.startup
ifconfig eth0 195.11.14.5 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 195.11.14.255 up
#route add default gw 195.11.14.1 dev eth0
the routing table entries
will be added manually
pc2.startup
ifconfig eth0 200.1.1.7 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 200.1.1.255 up
#route add default gw 200.1.1.1 dev eth0

© Computer Networks Research

Group Roma Tre kathara – [ lab: static routing ] last update: Nov 2019
 step 2 – the lab
r1.startup
ifconfig eth0 195.11.14.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 195.11.14.255 up
ifconfig eth1 100.0.0.9 netmask 255.255.255.252 broadcast 100.0.0.11 up
#route add -net 200.1.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 100.0.0.10 dev eth1

r2.startup
ifconfig eth0 200.1.1.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 200.1.1.255 up
ifconfig eth1 100.0.0.10 netmask 255.255.255.252 broadcast 100.0.0.11 up
#route add -net 195.11.14.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 100.0.0.9 dev eth1

the routing table entries

will be added manually

© Computer Networks Research

Group Roma Tre kathara – [ lab: static routing ] last update: Nov 2019
 step 3 – testing connectivity
root@pc1:~$ ping 195.11.14.1
PING 195.11.14.1 (195.11.14.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
interfaces
64 bytes from 195.11.14.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=3.17 ms
on
themssame
64 bytes from 195.11.14.1: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.371
domain can
--- 195.11.14.1 ping statistics --- reach each
2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 2019ms
other
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.308/1.285/3.176/1.337 ms

pc1 pc2
200.1.1.7
195.11.14.5 eth0 eth0

eth0 100.0.0.9 100.0.0.10 eth0 200.1.1.1

195.11.14.1 r1 r2
eth1kathara – [ lab: static routing ] eth1 last update: Nov 2019
© Computer Networks Research
Group Roma Tre
 step 3 – testing connectivity
pc1 interfaces on different
pc1:~# ping 100.0.0.9 domains cannot be
connect: Network is unreachable reached
pc1:~# █

can you tell why?

pc1 pc2
200.1.1.7
195.11.14.5 eth0 eth0

195.11.14.1 eth0 100.0.0.9 100.0.0.10 eth0 200.1.1.1

r1 r2
eth1 eth1
© Computer Networks Research
Group Roma Tre kathara – [ lab: static routing ] last update: Nov 2019
 step 3 – inspecting routing tables
 both routers and pcs don’t know how to reach networks that are not directly connected to
them

r1
r1:~# route
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
100.0.0.8 * 255.255.255.252 U 0 0 0 eth1
195.11.14.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
r1:~# █

 directly connected networks are automatically inserted into the routing table when the
corresponding interface is brought up
 this is a common behavior of all ip devices (even real-world routers!)

© Computer Networks Research

Group Roma Tre kathara – [ lab: static routing ] last update: Nov 2019
 step 4 – default routes on pcs
 to fix the problem we could specify the default route on the pcs: “through
this gateway (ip number) you can reach all the other networks”

pc1
pc1:~# route add default gw 195.11.14.1
pc1:~# route
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
195.11.14.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
default 195.11.14.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
pc1:~# █

© Computer Networks Research

Group Roma Tre kathara – [ lab: static routing ] last update: Nov 2019
 step 4 – default routes on pcs: test
pc1
pc1:~# ping 100.0.0.9
PING 100.0.0.9 (100.0.0.9) 56(84) bytes of
64 bytes from 100.0.0.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=64
data.
time=0.451 ms
the
64 bytes from 100.0.0.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.299 ms “backbone
64 bytes from 100.0.0.9: icmp_seq=3 ttl=64 time=0.320 ms
interface” of
--- 100.0.0.9 ping statistics --- r1 is
3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2003ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.299/0.356/0.451/0.070 ms reachable
pc1:~# █

pc1 pc2
200.1.1.7
195.11.14.5 eth0 eth0

195.11.14.1 eth0 100.0.0.9 100.0.0.10 eth0 200.1.1.1

r1 r2
© Computer Networks Research Group Roma
Tre eth1 kathara – [ lab: static routing ] eth1 last update: Nov 2019
 step 4 – default routes on pcs: test
pc1
pc1:~# ping 100.0.0.10 interfaces on
PING 100.0.0.10 (100.0.0.10) 56(84) bytes of data. r2 seem
--- 100.0.0.10 ping statistics --- unreachable!
7 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 6105ms

pc1:~# █
can you tell
why?

pc1 pc2
200.1.1.7
195.11.14.5 eth0 eth0

195.11.14.1 eth0 100.0.0.9 100.0.0.10 eth0 200.1.1.1

r1 r2
© Computer Networks Research Group Roma
Tre eth1 kathara – [ lab: static routing ] eth1 last update: Nov 2019
 step 4 – let’s inspect the network
 do echo request packets reach r2?
 let’s check...
 while pinging from pc1 100.0.0.10 sniff on interface eth1 of r2
r2

r2:~# tcpdump -tenni eth1

tcpdump: verbose output suppressed, use -v or -vv for full protocol decode
listening on eth1, link-type EN10MB (Ethernet), capture size 96 bytes
16:06:58.977851 arp who-has 100.0.0.10 tell 100.0.0.9
16:06:59.088906 arp reply 100.0.0.10 is-at fe:fd:64:00:00:0a
16:06:59.089990 IP 195.11.14.5 > 100.0.0.10: icmp 64: echo request seq 1
16:06:59.989368 IP 195.11.14.5 > 100.0.0.10: icmp 64: echo request seq 2
16:07:01.001888 IP 195.11.14.5 > 100.0.0.10: icmp 64: echo request seq 3

5 packets captured echo requests are

5 packets received by filter
0 packets dropped by kernel
arriving!
r2:~# █

© Computer Networks Research

Group Roma Tre kathara – [ lab: static routing ] last update: Nov 2019
 step 4 – r2’s routing table
 pc1’s address is 195.11.14.5
 r2 does not know how to reach such an address.
 echo requests arrive to r2 but r2 does not know where echo
replies should be forwarded!
 somebody should teach r2 how to reach pc1
 we may insert a static route into the routing table of r2
r2
r2:~# route
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
Iface
100.0.0.8 * 255.255.255.252 U 0 0 0 eth1
200.1.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
r2:~# █

© Computer Networks Research

Group Roma Tre kathara – [ lab: static routing ] last update: Nov 2019
 step 5 – configuring a static route
r2

r2:~# route add -net 195.11.14.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 100.0.0.9 dev eth1

network 195.11.14.0...
...with netmask …is reachable via
255.255.255.0... 100.0.0.9…
r2:~# route …on interface eth1
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
100.0.0.8 * 255.255.255.252 U 0 0 0 eth1
200.1.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
195.11.14.0 100.0.0.9 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1
r2:~# █

© Computer Networks Research

Group Roma Tre kathara – [ lab: static routing ] last update: Nov 2019
 step 5 – configuring a static route
 a similar configuration should be deployed on r1

r1
r1:~# route add -net 200.1.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 100.0.0.10 dev eth1
r1:~# route
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
100.0.0.8 * 255.255.255.252 U 0 0 0 eth1
200.1.1.0 100.0.0.10 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1
195.11.14.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
r1:~# █

© Computer Networks Research

Group Roma Tre kathara – [ lab: static routing ] last update: Nov 2019
 step 5 – testing static routes
 the PCs can now reach each other
pc1
pc1:~# ping 200.1.1.7
PING 200.1.1.7 (200.1.1.7) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 200.1.1.7: icmp_seq=1 ttl=62 time=111 ms
64 bytes from 200.1.1.7: icmp_seq=2 ttl=62 time=1.05 ms
64 bytes from 200.1.1.7: icmp_seq=3 ttl=62 time=0.820 ms

--- 200.1.1.7 ping statistics ---

3 packets transmitted, 3 received, 0% packet loss, time 2042ms
rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 0.820/37.779/111.467/52.105 ms
pc1:~# █

© Computer Networks Research

Group Roma Tre kathara – [ lab: static routing ] last update: Nov 2019
 proposed exercises
 the default route can be statically configured by using

route add default gw 195.11.14.1 dev eth0

 can you give a command to configure a static route that

is equivalent to the default route?

route add -net __ netmask __ gw __ dev __

© Computer Networks Research

Group Roma Tre kathara – [ lab: static routing ] last update: Nov 2019
 proposed exercises
 not all the routing tables contain a default route
 the network of this lab is so simple that routers r1 and
r2 can be also configured to exclusively use default
routes
 try such a configuration and test it

© Computer Networks Research

Group Roma Tre kathara – [ lab: static routing ] last update: Nov 2019