Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 05:19:22 -0400 From: Steve Bertrand <steve@ibctech.ca> To: David Allen <the.real.david.allen@gmail.com> Cc: Chris Pratt <eagletree@hughes.net>, FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: IP alias/routing question Message-ID: <488AEC1A.1020909@ibctech.ca> In-Reply-To: <2daa8b4e0807251605j525d7480n5a5531188f718660@mail.gmail.com> References: <9339104B-252B-49DC-9648-B59343E17E16@hughes.net> <488A0997.3090300@infracaninophile.co.uk> <2daa8b4e0807251605j525d7480n5a5531188f718660@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
David Allen wrote: > On Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Matthew Seaman > <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote: >> Chris Pratt wrote: >> Carefully not answering the 'why do these packets come from the >> wrong address' question, > Deliberately addressing the question of 'why do these packets come > from the wrong address' question which Mr. Seaman avoided ...heh, heh heh. Good job with the wording guys. I smiled brightly when I went through this ;) Since I've replied but clipped out any further context, I'll add a bit... I agree with David in that this is purely a routing issue. What (IMHO) it comes down to is 'source address selection'. I've been more focused in this scope within IPv6, but it is apparently a problem as well with IPv4, in a different manner. Perhaps this will become more of an issue as more people get used to the understanding that having multiple addresses per interface is the design goal, not an alias workaround. At one point I was advised that there is the ability to use multiple route tables within -current. If the box is being designed for only one application, could you try the new implementation of routing as opposed to making the application fit? Steve
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?488AEC1A.1020909>