From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jul 12 8:32:37 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from blade.elitsat.net (blade.elitsat.net [209.239.78.129]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EA4F37B403 for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 08:32:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from amour@blade.elitsat.net) Received: from localhost (amour@localhost) by blade.elitsat.net (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f6CFWJ607141; Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:32:19 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from amour@blade.elitsat.net) Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 18:32:18 +0300 (EEST) From: Alexander To: Joe Clarke Cc: Subject: Re: route question In-Reply-To: <20010712112351.C22271-100000@shumai.marcuscom.com> Message-ID: <20010712182755.M5869-100000@blade.elitsat.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Can u tell me how can I make such a configuration. The IP addresses must be the same, they can't be changed. Isn't there a way to add the routings statically or to use ipfw's forwarding ? Any solution will be good. On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Joe Clarke wrote: > The W flag is the cloned flag. I don't think you can create this > manually. The reason your static route isn't working is that the kernel > is ARP'ing for the hosts, and not looking at the routing table. I'm > really suprised Linux let you get away with this configuration. > > Joe Clarke > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Alexander wrote: > > > > > This routing was working before for linux server. > > After updating it to freebsd this problem came up. > > I know that this isn't a valid routing setup. > > > > 1.2.3.226 is in the network for ed2 (1.2.3.224/28) > > and I can't subnet it. > > If add the hosts manually the same thing happens > > flags UHLS and I can't ping the host and a big output of messages is > > comming. > > I'm just asking how to bring the "W" flag up ? (manually) > > > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Joe Clarke wrote: > > > > > This isn't a valid routing setup. The subnets overlap. Why not further > > > subnet the ed1 network so that it doesn't conflict with the /28 on ed2? > > > > > > Joe Clarke > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Jul 2001, Alexander wrote: > > > > > > > Simple question > > > > I have a routing: > > > > 1.2.3.226 52:54:0:e4:38:d9 UHLW 0 1297 ed1 957 > > > > This route is added by the kernel (or something like that, I haven't added it) > > > > and I want to add a route that has the flag "W". > > > > > > > > This is because of my problem. > > > > I have network 1.2.3.0/24 on ed1 > > > > and I have network 1.2.3.224/28 on ed2 > > > > but 1.2.3.226 is on ed1 > > > > and if I manually add it to ed1 > > > > e.g. > > > > route add -host 1.2.3.226 -iface ed1 > > > > it sets flags "UHLS" and no "W" and the route actually is not working, I > > > > can't ping the host or connect to it. > > > > > > > > If u know a solution for this problem please write me back fastly. > > > > > > > > > > > > P.S. network bridge is working but it is not a solution for me. I need to > > > > set these flags > > > > > > > > thanks > > > > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > > > > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message