From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 7 22:17:33 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: Freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Delivered-To: Freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C5E716A401 for ; Mon, 7 May 2007 22:17:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Kirk.Davis@epsb.ca) Received: from Exchange22.EDU.epsb.ca (exchange22.epsb.ca [198.161.119.187]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D68DD13C44C for ; Mon, 7 May 2007 22:17:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Kirk.Davis@epsb.ca) Received: from Exchange24.EDU.epsb.ca ([10.0.5.121]) by Exchange22.EDU.epsb.ca with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 7 May 2007 16:05:31 -0600 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 16:05:31 -0600 Message-ID: In-reply-to: <463E377E.2000300@elischer.org> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Policy Routing natd+ipfw Thread-Index: AceQG2DMfPpequKZR3SRw2Sqxn60MgA14ctQ References: <33910a2c0705041812s2aaf0b62t785e16abc0decee6@mail.gmail.com> <463E377E.2000300@elischer.org> From: "Kirk Davis" To: "Julian Elischer" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 May 2007 22:05:31.0955 (UTC) FILETIME=[D479C030:01C790F3] Cc: Freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Policy Routing natd+ipfw X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 May 2007 22:17:33 -0000 =20 Julian Elischer wrote: >=20 > in -current you can implement a routing table via FWD and tables. > in 6.x you need to specify the next hop. and an more explicit rule. Is there any information floating around on how to do this in current using the FWD rules and tables? Any pointer on where to look. Right now I am using fwd rules on our BGP router (Quagga & FreeBSD 6.2) to force one of our subnets out a particular interface and avoid the routing table but I would prefer to do it more like a dual routing table where I can make more routing decisions than just forcing all packets from that subnet out the interface. I could test it on one of our current boxes. >=20 > julian ---- Kirk