Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2021 22:11:17 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: net@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 255678] security/strongswan cant add routes via RTM_ADD via PF_ROUTE socket Message-ID: <bug-255678-7501-tIbSpJkLcD@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-255678-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-255678-7501@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D255678 --- Comment #18 from Alexander V. Chernikov <melifaro@FreeBSD.org> --- (In reply to Tobias Brunner from comment #17) > Not exactly. The end goal is to install a route that causes the kernel to= select the "internal" IP address (192.168.5.10 on igb0) as source when rea= ching the remote VPN subnet (10.11.12.0/24). Got it. > For comparison, on Linux, we install a route for the remote subnet via ex= ternal interface but we set the RTA_PREFSRC attribute to the internal IP ad= dress, which causes it to get selected when traffic to the remote subnet is= generated (we also install that route in a separate routing table that tak= es precedence over the main table and allows us to even override the defaul= t route without conflicts). AFAIK, there is nothing similar on FreeBSD. *BSD has RTAX_IFA rtsock option allowing to choose the preferred source address. FreeBSD has support for multiple routing tables (net.fibs), though there ma= y be some rough edges. I'll be able to look and hopefully fix the issue on the weekend. Re optimal way of specifying the source address - IMO having an explicit RTAX_IFA + RTAX_IFP (specified by an ifindex) should be more bulletproof, b= ut let me fix the bug first & verify the proper RTAX_IFA operations. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-255678-7501-tIbSpJkLcD>