From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Nov 7 06:09:50 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D645416A4CE for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 06:09:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from blacklamb.mykitchentable.net (207-173-254-228.bras01.elk.ca.frontiernet.net [207.173.254.228]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20EFF43FA3 for ; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 06:09:50 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drew@mykitchentable.net) Received: from bigdaddy (unknown [192.168.1.3]) by blacklamb.mykitchentable.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 48FE93BF3B3; Fri, 7 Nov 2003 06:09:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <010801c3a538$ce5e8b40$0301a8c0@bigdaddy> From: "Drew Tomlinson" To: "Helge Oldach" References: <200311070759.IAA19949@galaxy.hbg.de.ao-srv.com> Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 06:09:38 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300 cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Routing With Two ISPs? X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 14:09:50 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Helge Oldach" Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2003 11:59 PM > Drew Tomlinson: > >I have a 4.8 box serving as a gateway with two connections to the > >Internet. Is there some way to set the box up so that packets are > >routed out through the same interface from which they arrived? For > >example, if a connection is initiated on port 80 from a packet arriving > >on one interface, is there a way to make the outgoing packets from my > >web server use that same interface as a gateway instead of the default > >interface? > > Unfortunately not. While your application (multi-homing, aka "strong ES" > model of RFC 1122) would appear simpler, a general solution would target > at true policy-based routing. > > The latest information I have seen is > http://www.mail-archive.com/freebsd-net@freebsd.org/msg07737.html. Thank you for your reply. I can understand that it's more difficult than it appears. I get easily confused when thinking about routing. :) Now that I know what "terms" I'm looking for (like "strong ES") I can search this in the threads and see if/when it gets implemented. Cheers, Drew