Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:50:15 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Problems with two interfaces on the same subnet? Message-ID: <kfdvck$6ak$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F70995D@SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com> References: <kfduar$qrh$1@ger.gmane.org> <D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F70995D@SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On 12/02/2013 18:38, Eggert, Lars wrote: > This sounds like your default route is going via igb2. Yes, it is. > You can make this work with ipfw rules (and I guess also setfib, although I have not tried that.) The concept of FIBs looks clean and applicable but setfib works on newly started process, and I would need to do something like apply it to packets coming from an interface. I've found previous posts on "policy routing" with ipfw (http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-security/2004-April/001839.html) but this is probably not what I need; I would need that packets generated as a response to incoming packets go to the same interface as the incoming packet. Or are you thinking of hard-coding client addresses in ipfw rules so that packets going to specific IPs go to a specific interface? [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (FreeBSD) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlEagNcACgkQ/QjVBj3/HSyiXwCgndqGRZqn6V+t6IDHINlUEn1k h/4An2qEiQGMm/82FJqufK1o6MAb9+li =m7Ji -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?kfdvck$6ak$1>