Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:52:30 -0800 From: Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com> To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Problems with two interfaces on the same subnet? Message-ID: <CAOjFWZ75GZwYwxuuXotqsfothz2cShbaD9yZQ9Gs5p%2BYbvA7Mw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <kfdvck$6ak$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <kfduar$qrh$1@ger.gmane.org> <D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F70995D@SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <kfdvck$6ak$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Any reason you can't just use lagg(4) in one of the non-LACP modes? That's bascially designed to do exactly what you want. On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote: > 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? > > > -- Freddie Cash fjwcash@gmail.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAOjFWZ75GZwYwxuuXotqsfothz2cShbaD9yZQ9Gs5p%2BYbvA7Mw>