From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Thu Aug 19 18:34:57 2021 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.nyi.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.nyi.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C095669DC8 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 18:34:57 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-database@pp.dyndns.biz) Received: from keymaster.local (ns1.xn--wesstrm-f1a.se [81.4.102.176]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "keymaster.pp.dyndns.biz", Issuer "keymaster.pp.dyndns.biz" (not verified)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4GrD2l03L2z3NWj for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 18:34:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from freebsd-database@pp.dyndns.biz) Received: from [192.168.69.69] ([192.168.69.69]) by keymaster.local (8.16.1/8.16.1) with ESMTP id 17JIXY19001631 for ; Thu, 19 Aug 2021 20:33:38 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from freebsd-database@pp.dyndns.biz) Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: Static route and arp problem in FreeBSD 13.0 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <7fab4cb0-8045-fc8d-7bfd-887495dc00ff@pp.dyndns.biz> <810095e7a8006dbe1b5c966d3525e43f@jodocus.org> <4271ced7.AVoAAAo8Ek4AAAAAAAAAAHAkGMAAAAAA0PMAAAAAABYlygBhHgsB@mailjet.com> From: =?UTF-8?Q?Morgan_Wesstr=c3=b6m?= Message-ID: <0a3422bd-0291-14f0-f4bf-ee28daeff6e0@pp.dyndns.biz> Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 20:33:19 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.12.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4271ced7.AVoAAAo8Ek4AAAAAAAAAAHAkGMAAAAAA0PMAAAAAABYlygBhHgsB@mailjet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4GrD2l03L2z3NWj X-Spamd-Bar: / Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=none; dmarc=none; spf=none (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd-database@pp.dyndns.biz has no SPF policy when checking 81.4.102.176) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd-database@pp.dyndns.biz X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-0.79 / 15.00]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_ONE(0.00)[1]; HFILTER_HELO_IP_A(1.00)[keymaster.local]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-1.00)[-1.000]; HFILTER_HELO_NORES_A_OR_MX(0.30)[keymaster.local]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-0.99)[-0.995]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[no SPF record]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[pp.dyndns.biz]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ASN(0.00)[asn:198203, ipnet:81.4.100.0/22, country:NL]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; MAILMAN_DEST(0.00)[freebsd-questions] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2021 18:34:57 -0000 > 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