Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:11:01 -0700 (PDT)
From:      Joseph Lee <nugundam@nerv.nu>
To:        "D. Alex Neilson" <neilson@www.nugate.com>, "Nick A. Fikouras" <nick@dcs.shef.ac.uk>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Static Route, need help (was: Re: Static Route (Correction))
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.4.10.9909082150570.7622-100000@greenwood3.nerv.nu>

next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
nick@dcs.shef.ac.uk wrote on Mon, 02 Nov 1998 12:07:22 +0000:
>D. Alex Neilson wrote
>
>> With this configuration, to get A to talk to B, one could say on A
>>
>>    route add -host 192.168.67.67 -interface vx0
>>
>>           -------
>>           |     |
>>           |  A  |
>>           |     |
>>           -------
>>              | 192.168.66.66 (vx0)
>>              |
>>       -------------------------------------  ethernet (multiple nets)
>>                      |
>>                      |
>>                      | 192.168.67.67 (le0)
>>                   -------
>>                   |     |
>>                   |  B  |
>>                   |     |
>>                   -------
>>
>> I get this route, but the gateway ethernet address is for host A:
>>
>>    Destination        Gateway            Flags     Refs     Use     Netif
>>    192.168.67.67     0:60:8:4:4:ed      UHLS        0        0       vx0
>>
>> Of course, it doesn't work; strangely, if I try telnetting from B to A,
>> it'll pause for a moment, then let me in, with A giving this message
>>
>>    myhost /kernel: arp: 192.168.67.67 moved from                \
>>    00:60:08:04:04:ed to 08:00:20:73:87:89
>>
>> and A now shows the route I wanted in the first place:
>>
>>    Destination        Gateway            Flags     Refs     Use     Netif
>>    192.168.67.67     8:0:20:73:87:89    UHLS        1       55       vx0
>>
>> Is there a way to get the latter route in the first place?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Alex
>>
[snip]
>I have had the same problem, this is what I've found out from my experience.
>The main problem is that whenever a static route to a host is created, for no
>apparent reason, an ARP entry is created for the particular host indicating as
>its MAC address the address of the interface that was passed as argumen in the
>'route add -host' command (!). What makes things even worse is that static
>links seem to create permanent arp entries. You can verify that by doing arp
>-a. In my case I had two machines that could not exchange traffic due to the
>folly arp table. All traffic transmitted by a node was destined at the link
>layer for itself!!!!. I checked with a network analyser.
>The way I've overcome this is, I've created I a file with all the proper arp
>entries and I load it up manually after booting has completed (check arp
>manual page for this). I know this not the most scientific way of doing it, if
>anybody has any suggestions I'm willing to change.
>
>hope I've been of any help,
>
>nick

I've found a solution short of hacking route itself.

It's:
route add -iface <ip> -link <interface>:<ether address>

Or to restate the original example:
route add -iface 192.168.67.67 -link vx0:8:0:20:73:87:89

-- 
Joseph nugundam =best=com==/==\=IIGS=/==\=Playstation=/==\=Civic HX CVT=/==\
#            Anime Expo 1999            >> www.anime-expo.org/              >
#      FreeBSD: The Power to Serve      >> www.freebsd.org                  >
# EX: The Online World of Anime & Manga >> www.ex.org/                     /



To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.10.9909082150570.7622-100000>