Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2023 16:21:19 +0000 From: Benoit Chesneau <benoitc@enki-multimedia.eu> To: Benoit Chesneau <benoitc@enki-multimedia.eu> Cc: Stephane Rochoy <stephane.rochoy@stormshield.eu>, "freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: issue with bird next hop Message-ID: <aLI3586n0W0EEhcvTMsIKkROMoJn6okhl-oHPiiw7Aqfh8NxdG1fdFt-MW6RqGpCztJmZDEw4K4DVmSh0XX6wIU07-PGq14p1LfECkDCKco=@enki-multimedia.eu> In-Reply-To: <YUj84gY-b0nzaELgjE3WWUeIZf6XK9vUfkb4C0eSKqMD6BcMp0TLsfucpMFr4GnVCs6EqZmzIN-o2Mm6m4ElsYtX8zTrPt6fZeUdqr_C2W0=@enki-multimedia.eu> References: <QRbSWYGTM99jGJemsToTF2OCsoIQ1HoGLKHDscNWl3H5w3xtOoJNf5mCjfsblO2e8p6jNZcTpVUWKe1g5JD3Slv-1mKxSRQoGhJO_tMO8WU=@enki-multimedia.eu> <86wn05hs9v.fsf@cthulhu.stephaner.labo.int> <1sE_u2MbHLU_bqWuLFwC5a0K8HeACVoCjWVPEDRZJ5KmD_Y-eG5OIVsWN9vBFV0Q6isWtc3-Z410kCBMRZhsFQUBNLoBYsIWGQ3kz0VaXXs=@enki-multimedia.eu> <86v8foj3rn.fsf@cthulhu.stephaner.labo.int> <YUj84gY-b0nzaELgjE3WWUeIZf6XK9vUfkb4C0eSKqMD6BcMp0TLsfucpMFr4GnVCs6EqZmzIN-o2Mm6m4ElsYtX8zTrPt6fZeUdqr_C2W0=@enki-multimedia.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Should I better use `tap` instead of `lo` interface with bird? On linux they are using a dummy interface for it, so I'm wondering.... Benoît ------- Original Message ------- On Thursday, June 15th, 2023 at 14:48, Benoit Chesneau <benoitc@enki-multimedia.eu> wrote: > I see. This may indeed be related... > > The current route is learnt using OSPF. This is weird to not have it using the source address configured in bird though:/ > > Benoît Chesneau, Enki Multimedia > — > t. +33608655490 > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Thursday, June 15th, 2023 at 14:42, Stephane Rochoy stephane.rochoy@stormshield.eu wrote: > > > > > Benoit Chesneau benoitc@enki-multimedia.eu writes: > > > > > Thanks for the hint. Unfortunately when I am setting it to /30 > > > the machine stop to be advertised :/ Most probably because /30 > > > will be routed locally? > > > > > > Why would setting it to /30 fix the issue ? What does it solves > > > when we do it? > > > > I just reacted to the fact that, IMHO, `route get` is correct when > > responding that 1.1.1.2 is not reachable via lo1. > > > > Regards, > > -- > > Stéphane Rochoy > > O: Stormshield
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?aLI3586n0W0EEhcvTMsIKkROMoJn6okhl-oHPiiw7Aqfh8NxdG1fdFt-MW6RqGpCztJmZDEw4K4DVmSh0XX6wIU07-PGq14p1LfECkDCKco=>