From owner-freebsd-hackers Mon Sep 22 07:10:36 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id HAA14703 for hackers-outgoing; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 07:10:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ingenieria ([168.176.15.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id HAA14678 for ; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 07:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by ingenieria (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4) id JAA25740; Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:05:00 -0400 Date: Mon, 22 Sep 1997 09:04:59 -0400 (EDT) From: Yonny Cardenas To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: RIPv2, Routed and gated in FreeBSD Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Vernon schryver wrote: Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:27:32 -0600 From: Vernon Schryver Subject: RIPv2, gated, and routed } > Add interface ppp0 200.20.30.1 --> 9.30.20.200/32 } } }If this RouteD - you have the wrong list. Agreed. Since the topic has not gone away, and some incorrect statements have been made, I'll answer. }If this RouteD - you have the wrong list. Since it is ICMP router }discovery - I suspect you have Vernon Schryver's updated version. It looks likely. } > Why 9.30.20.200/32 ?. It=B4s 200.20.30.9.=20 } } I was going to tell you that not only do you have the wrong list } but you also are using an address in IBM's class A block. However, } this is obviously a case of a missing htonl() or ntohl() invocation } on an Intel processor (which stores fullwords and halfwords with the } least significant byte in lowest addressable byte). People outside SGI found a bunch of htonl()/ntohl() bugs (I think) last year. The most current source is in ftp.sgi.com:sgi/src/routed.tar.Z ] >the ppp interface supports multicast: ] ] >ppp0: flags=3D8051 mtu 1500 ] >(on my system) As long as your PPP interface just stuffs multicast packets into the PPP pipe, and your kernel does the right things with multicast packets that come out of the PPP pipe, the right things should happen. However, since PPP is a point-to-pint interface (as indicated by common sense and IFF_POINTOPOINT bit in your struct if_net as shown by your system), it is just as well for a RIPv2 implementation to send RIPv2 using unicast addresses. ] Is OK, I am usig FreeBSD 2.2.1 and gated 3.5Beta3. I do not know how recent that is. ] >Try gated; it can support RIPv2 better. I beg to differ. From what I saw of both 3.5 and 3.6, RIPv2 is not the favorite protocol of `gated`. When last I ported 3.5, some of the gated RIPv2 bugs were still there, a year or more after I reported them, and some of the implementation holes still existed (e.g. support for RIPv2 authentication). ] >it looks to me that routed's support of RIP2 is broken. ] >I can be wrong. Which OS version you are using? what is your ] >network configuration? RIPv2 in `routed` works fine on a bunch of systems in the internal Silicon Graphics network, including over PPP links. There is a total of about 10,000 systems on 1,500 IP networks using the 100s of class-Cs and several class-Bs SGI has been allocated over the years. A few 100 systems are using RIPv2. OSPF and IGRP are also in use. The PPP code invovled is almost but not entirely the standard IRIX code (i.e. mine). ] I have two box how routers, one run gated (A) and other run routed (B), ] conected with link ethernet, the router (A) anounnce OK to ] other neighbor EGP, all its paths. ] ] ------ EGP -------9 RIP 1-------- RIP ] | |----... --------| A |**************| B |-------- ] ------ ------- -------- 200.20.30 ] >> Need configuration especial in file /etc/gateways ? How ? ] ] >you need it for routed; try gated, and I have seen you can write ] >gated.conf ;-) Nonsense! In general, you do not need /etc/gateways either with the 4.*BSD code based on Sam Leffler's primordial implementation nor with my code. In the old version of `routed`, /etc/gateways was needed only for some odd cases, such as telling `routed` to ignore an interface. In the FreeBSD version, you can tell `routed` to ignore an interface on the command line. Please read the fine (or perhaps not so fine) man page. In this case, I probably would run `gated` on system "A", doing EGP on the link to the left system "A" and RIPv2 on the PPP link. I would run either `gated` or `routed`, whichever I was comfortable with, on system "B". Depending on what is to the right of the PPP link, it might be possible to use static default routes on systems to the right, not use any routig protocol on the PPP link, and use a suitable gated.conf file to cause `gated` to advertise the network(s) on the right into EGP on the left. Vernon Schryver, vjs@sgi.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- YONNY CARDENAS B. Systems Engineer || || ||| || Universidad Nacional de Colombia || || || | || Email : yonny@ingenieria.ingsala.unal.edu.co ||||||| || |||