From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 21 13:47:55 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org 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 5146E16A423 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:47:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from lk@tempest.sk) Received: from proxy.dgrp.sk (proxy.dgrp.sk [195.28.127.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ACD943D46 for ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 13:47:53 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from lk@tempest.sk) Received: by proxy.dgrp.sk (Postfix, from userid 1003) id 509D5800A; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:47:52 +0100 (CET) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on proxy.dgrp.sk X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=4.0 tests=AWL autolearn=ham version=3.1.0 Received: from webmail.tempest.sk (domino1.tempest.sk [195.28.100.38]) by proxy.dgrp.sk (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE5578004; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:47:48 +0100 (CET) Received: from lk107.tempest.sk ([195.28.109.37]) by webmail.tempest.sk (Lotus Domino Release 6.5.4) with ESMTP id 2006032114474797-2834 ; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:47:47 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by lk107.tempest.sk (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k2LDlexD032332; Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:47:41 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from lk@tempest.sk) Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2006 14:47:40 +0100 (CET) Message-Id: <20060321.144740.71081196.lk@tempest.sk> To: lists@wm-access.no From: Ludovit Koren in-reply-to: <441F8B53.7050304@wm-access.no> (message from =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sten_Daniel_S=F8rsdal?= on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:12:51 +0100) References: <20060320.125130.92586288.lk@tempest.sk> <441F8B53.7050304@wm-access.no> X-Mailer: xcite1.57> Mew version 4.2 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 X-MIMETrack: Itemize by SMTP Server on Domino1/DGRP(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 21.03.2006 14:47:48, Serialize by Router on Domino1/DGRP(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 21.03.2006 14:47:48, Serialize complete at 21.03.2006 14:47:49, Serialize by Router on Domino1/DGRP(Release 6.5.4|March 27, 2005) at 21.03.2006 14:47:49 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: static routes 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, 21 Mar 2006 13:47:55 -0000 >>>>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2006 06:12:51 +0100 >>>>> lists@wm-access.no(=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sten_Daniel_S=F8rsdal?=) said: > > This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) > --------------enig31C5AF3351A4904FFAEF208E > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Ludovit Koren wrote: > > Hi, > >=20 > > I realized on several different versions of FreeBSD including > > 5.4-STABLE, when using static routes to specific subnets and the WAN > > link goes down for unpredictable reasons, the server gets ICMP > > redirect message and rearranges routes to use default router. Then all > > the traffic is routed to the default router even the WAN link is again > > up. Other unix like system (HP-UX, Linux) do not act the way, > > i.e. they do not change static routes. > >=20 > > Are the routes still there after link goes down and then up? > yes netstat -rn Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire default 195.28.109.1 UGS 0 760 bge0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 0 11589 lo0 192.168.100 195.28.109.24 UGS 0 8 bge0 192.168.100.1 195.28.109.1 UGHD3 0 2 bge0 3598 195.28.109 link#1 UC 0 0 bge0 195.28.109.1 00:0b:ac:29:1e:ca UHLW 3 0 bge0 324 195.28.109.24 00:0f:34:04:a2:f0 UHLW 2 0 bge0 1162 for each usage the expire counter starts again from 3600. I must admit, after analyzing the problem again, that the problem arises only if the net (routing devices) are not configured consistently, i.e. not all of them can or send ICMP redirect. The problem was on the net with Cisco router and PIX. It seems, according to the Cisco declaration, that PIX cannot send ICMP messages through the same interface and cannot route back via the same interface. Now, I have no 2 routers or 2 PIX-es at the disposal that's why I cannot test all possible combinations. Thanks. Regards, lk