Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 02:35:22 +0100 From: Damien Fleuriot <ml@my.gd> To: Benjamin Close <Benjamin.Close@clearchain.com> Cc: Tom Evans <tevans.uk@googlemail.com>, Yasir hussan <kolyasir@gmail.com>, Ian FREISLICH <ianf@clue.co.za>, Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: using multiple interfaces for same Network Card Message-ID: <0619561E-E343-4190-9C42-5BC5396D47E1@my.gd> In-Reply-To: <513FCF2D.1000006@clearchain.com> References: <CAMwCe3SyJJVLDciEYjt2urQ9Z2HwPWA1c1pLQC1Y8qJ8p-0f3g@mail.gmail.com> <CAMwCe3SeCroZW1EuZ1FouZcu9S6==o%2BCDoukZt_o2UQjTvcV9Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAFHbX1LDeWRZ=KTJTYy=0QOsoSuRCTp0odiGngq=pWD4Qjpm4Q@mail.gmail.com> <E1UFNyS-000H0R-TC@clue.co.za> <513FCF2D.1000006@clearchain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 13 Mar 2013, at 01:58, Benjamin Close <Benjamin.Close@clearchain.com> wro= te: > On 12/03/2013 22:36, Ian FREISLICH wrote: >> Yasir hussan wrote: >>> Thanks for notic but all the elebration was for make alias on one >>> interface but i want to have multiple interface, i can no where that >>> some one would have tring to creating new interfaces and using them, >>> or may be i am missing something, just send its solution if have, >>> solution should be for >> I still think you're confusing Linux semantics with FreeBSD semantics. >>=20 >> On linux you would have: >> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1E:C9:53:0B:61 >> inet addr:10.0.0.1 Bcast:10.0.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 >> inet6 addr: fe80::21e:c9ff:fe53:b61/64 Scope:Link >> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 >> RX packets:211328068 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 >> TX packets:368394006 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 >> collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 >> RX bytes:34065846811 (31.7 GiB) TX bytes:476377525764 (443.6 G= iB) >> Interrupt:169 Memory:e6000000-e6011100 >>=20 >> eth0:1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:1E:C9:53:0B:61 >> inet addr:10.0.1.1 Bcast:10.0.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 >> UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 >> Interrupt:169 Memory:e6000000-e6011100 >>=20 >>=20 >> On FreeBSD you would have: >>=20 >> re0: flags=3D8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 15= 00 >> options=3D8209b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM,VLAN_MTU,VLAN_HWTAGGING,VLAN_HWCSUM= ,WOL_MAGIC,LINKSTATE> >> ether 54:04:a6:96:0c:1e >> inet 10.0.0.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.0.0.255 >> inet 10.0.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.0.1.255 >> media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT <full-duplex>) >> status: active >>=20 >> These are both the same thing. Is there any particular reason that >> you want multiple interfaces? I can't see a use for it beyond "it's >> what I'm used to seeing" unless they're VLAN interfaces. >>=20 >> Ian >=20 > Just a comment on the aliases vs virtual interfaces. Having used both alia= ses and virtual interfaces, there is use cases which have always been easie= r under Linux than FreeBSD due to the virtual interface. >=20 > Once case is firewall rules that follow the device. > Let me explain. >=20 > Lets say under freebsd I setup two lans on the same card using aliases and= a switch that is NOT vlan capable (ie home adsl modem, some other unmanaged= switch). > ifconfig re0 172.16.1.1 > ifconfig re0 alias 192.168.1.1 >=20 > The firewall rules require the net to be used rather than an interface sin= ce the interface handles more than one lan. > ie (pf style): >=20 > pass in quick on re0 from 192.168.1.1/24 to any >=20 > Linux makes this easier: >=20 > ifconfig eth0 172.16.1.1 > ifconfig eth0:1 192.168.1.1 >=20 > pass in quick on eth0:1 from any to any >=20 > Whilst it's a minor difference, I can shift the device IP and my firewall r= ules automatically follow. This is just one case where having a virtual devi= ce make things easier=20 I fail to see a use case where having 2 networks on a single interface would= be useful, let alone desirable. This isn't to say your reasoning behind the PF rules thing is incorrect, all= I'm saying is "oh god no" to this. By the way I'm wondering if this would work: re0 has IPs 192.168.0.1234, 10.0.0.1/24 pass in quick on re0 inet from re0:1:network re0:network =3D 192.168.0.0/24 re0:1 =3D 10.0.0.1/32 I wonder if re0:1:network would expand to 10.0.0.0/24...=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0619561E-E343-4190-9C42-5BC5396D47E1>