From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 14 19:23:20 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C4E51065985 for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:23:20 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no) Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 558AD8FC2D for ; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:23:18 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from sthaug@nethelp.no) Received: (qmail 83850 invoked from network); 14 Apr 2009 19:23:18 -0000 Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 14 Apr 2009 19:23:18 -0000 Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 21:23:18 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <20090414.212318.41684722.sthaug@nethelp.no> To: julian@elischer.org From: sthaug@nethelp.no In-Reply-To: <49E48799.1000300@ibctech.ca> References: <20090413.220932.74699777.sthaug@nethelp.no> <49E41755.8050701@elischer.org> <49E48799.1000300@ibctech.ca> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org, steve@ibctech.ca, pcc@gmx.net Subject: Re: Multiple default routes / Force external routing X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 19:23:22 -0000 > > I think you are rather confused about what Multiple FIBs is.. > > All it is is teh ability to make a packet use a particular > > FIB on it's outgoing path. There is not such thing as an interface > > being "In" a FIB. All interfaces are still visible to the routing code > > by default, and The IP stack still knows about them.I think the IP > > stack set's the 'loopback' flag on a packet regardless of the FIB > > selected if teh dest is one of its own addresses. > > > > What you want is VIMAGE. I read a bit about VIMAGE (http://imunes.tel.fer.hr/virtnet/). No, I don't see the need for complete virtualization of network interfaces etc. I *would* very much like separate routing tables. If you look at a traditional router from Cisco, Juniper or similar, they offer separate routing tables without virtualizing everything. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no