From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Feb 12 17:52:38 2013
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C44CD5C;
 Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:52:38 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from fjwcash@gmail.com)
Received: from mail-qa0-f45.google.com (mail-qa0-f45.google.com
 [209.85.216.45]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5BDB77B;
 Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:52:37 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qa0-f45.google.com with SMTP id g10so1786802qah.11
 for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:52:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
 h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id
 :subject:from:to:cc:content-type;
 bh=Fdqm3xmsxlbH3+nE7gIuzkFFXDiiF5k5yrHQMSgC9ug=;
 b=GlqhKoRXM2U9TJs5Gvshc7HOYifVB3XSYB9EeHms51bR3R+MnDTJKFNWVzKr8GVZHB
 1PhmuQKjabsIx2zxQw2o7/c1mWkbCV38OKlOk9nOEFhdy3ZPWjMlv+tB1qtTz70InAb9
 q/cO2vRYHTZStohA/nR4eGqVkznAgSdIZ1SV41lXOhtF5rRAeqpakZjaOdDWATWd2nI5
 yOWO9oRpkFmrplTE4mrfNQ//jgHOv7qC9dU6P/nVOGrKEq6/Q8t27cpFKaezKNg0+ufn
 nGSr18gkZvH3qASMqO2WEpSL9X/0YElUMblsTI+P9nPK1q89F7CB6fBJ5SPhwmqLCO/a
 BYFg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.49.34.146 with SMTP id z18mr8524220qei.29.1360691550834;
 Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:52:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.49.106.233 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:52:30 -0800 (PST)
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>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:52:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOjFWZ75GZwYwxuuXotqsfothz2cShbaD9yZQ9Gs5p+YbvA7Mw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Problems with two interfaces on the same subnet?
From: Freddie Cash <fjwcash@gmail.com>
To: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.14
Cc: freebsd-net <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
 <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 17:52:38 -0000

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