Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:41:21 +0000 From: Tom Jobbins <tomjobbins@gmail.com> To: Daniel O'Connor <doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Cc: Tom Jobbins <tomjobbins@gmail.com>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Two PPP connections to the same ISP with same remote gateway Message-ID: <43C79FF1.4050905@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <200601131309.24446.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> References: <a3d37d280601121337y64ec3965r@mail.gmail.com> <200601131309.24446.doconnor@gsoft.com.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks for replying, Daniel >On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 08:07, Tom Jobbins wrote: > > >>This can be demonstrated from the command line with the following: >>[root@magrathea:~]$ ifconfig tun0 1.2.3.5 1.2.3.250 >>[root@magrathea:~]$ ifconfig tun1 1.2.4.4 1.2.3.250 >>ifconfig: ioctl (SIOCAIFADDR): File exists >> >> > >This is really odd, because I don't see this on my machines (as per our discussion on IRC which you mention below), I did.. > >midget# uname -a >FreeBSD midget.dons.net.au 5.4-STABLE FreeBSD 5.4-STABLE #4: Mon Aug 1 09:01:42 CST 2005 darius@midget.dons.net.au:/usr/src/sys/i386/compile/MIDGET i386 > >midget# cat /dev/tun & >[1] 21524 >midget# cat /dev/tun & >[2] 21525 > > I've isolated the difference. If I repeat exactly what you do - including the two cat /dev/tun commands - then it works for me too. So long as the tun0 and tun1 interfaces are created with a cat /dev/tun &, I am able to give them matching remote gateway addresses. However this is not the case when the interfaces are created any other way, i.e. via ppp. Ditto ng0/ng1 created by mpd. Also, if I then kill the cat /dev/tun commands, leaving tun0 and tun1 existing, but unopened, I am then no longer able to set the matching gateway. And if I don't kill the cat commands, ppp can't use those tun devices because another process has them open. So it would appear this was just a dead end. I don't know whats different about an interface created with the cat command - perhaps as it's not connected to a real network utility, the normal route checking does not apply? If you - or anyone else - has any more ideas as to what I can try to make this work, I would be most grateful. It's incredibly frustrating to be limited in this way, given that I'm almost certain that ipfilters source-based routing will get around any routing issues if I could only bring the interfaces up. Thanks Tom
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43C79FF1.4050905>