Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 20:33:19 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?Q?Morgan_Wesstr=c3=b6m?= <freebsd-database@pp.dyndns.biz> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Static route and arp problem in FreeBSD 13.0 Message-ID: <0a3422bd-0291-14f0-f4bf-ee28daeff6e0@pp.dyndns.biz> In-Reply-To: <4271ced7.AVoAAAo8Ek4AAAAAAAAAAHAkGMAAAAAA0PMAAAAAABYlygBhHgsB@mailjet.com> References: <7fab4cb0-8045-fc8d-7bfd-887495dc00ff@pp.dyndns.biz> <810095e7a8006dbe1b5c966d3525e43f@jodocus.org> <4271ced7.AVoAAAo8Ek4AAAAAAAAAAHAkGMAAAAAA0PMAAAAAABYlygBhHgsB@mailjet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I have a similar setup at home and I can access the modem without any special > routes/arps. > I'm assuming you've tried accessing the modem without any special config. Yes, this does indeed seem to work at least when I try to ping the modem. The packets are as expected routed to the ISP's default gateway who ignores them as it should. But the modem is intercepting them and replies to the pings. This would probably work but looks like potential trouble just waiting to happen. :) > > Can you try changing the route statement to "192.168.0.1/32 -iface em0"? > This tells the system the address is directly connected and it will send arp > requests out em0. The -iface is confusingly a flag but there's an -interface parameter to route so I modified the command as follows: # route add -net 192.168.0.1/32 -interface em0 add net 192.168.0.1: gateway em0 This does indeed work as I would expect and seems to me a proper solution since it produces the same routing and arp entries as my original command. It has the added benefit I don't have to add a static arp entry. Thank you for the suggestion! :) I'm still intrigued about the difference in behaviour between 12.2 and 13.0 and there seems to be a learning experience for me here. I ran the original command again but in debug mode and now it doesn't output any errors. But in debug mode it doesn't modify the routing table so I'm still at loss at what's wrong and there were no other information of interest in the output. I'm satisfied with the new solution and will use it instead but if anyone has any insight in the strange output message from route I'm still interested to learn. Kind regards Morgan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0a3422bd-0291-14f0-f4bf-ee28daeff6e0>