Date: Wed, 10 May 2006 09:18:10 +0200 From: Milan Obuch <net@dino.sk> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: vrf support in FreeBSD Message-ID: <200605100918.10875.net@dino.sk> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0605100147320.4232@pop.ict1.everquick.net> References: <5EB31780BD297F46812C8F495FA08F620438CAE3@electron.jnpr.net> <200605091439.26549.net@dino.sk> <Pine.LNX.4.62.0605100147320.4232@pop.ict1.everquick.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 10 May 2006 03:49, Edward B. DREGER wrote:
> MO> Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 14:39:25 +0200
> MO> From: Milan Obuch
>
> MO> > JE> how do you want to select which table should be used?
> MO> > Ingress interface.
> MO>
> MO> Sounds reasonable, one important point missing - packets locally
> MO> originated/'destinated'.
> MO> Other than that, fully acceptable.
>
> IMNSHO, I'd rather have a { default | manually-specified } table for
> locally-sourced packets.
>
My point is I need two processes, say apache, running with two different
routing tables (typically only default route in there, but this does not
conceptually matters). That's whole point why I was using Marko's vimages
for. (With more processes, but this does not matter here)
Regards,
Milan
--
Please reply to maling list only. I read it regularly.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200605100918.10875.net>