From owner-freebsd-ipfw@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Apr 2 09:24:11 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8555A106564A for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:24:11 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zgabe84@gmail.com) Received: from mail-fx0-f167.google.com (mail-fx0-f167.google.com [209.85.220.167]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 298778FC13 for ; Thu, 2 Apr 2009 09:24:09 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from zgabe84@gmail.com) Received: by fxm11 with SMTP id 11so395307fxm.43 for ; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:24:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=nAaqwwajEpX2fa9Q3CHZv0cwQ4OuR2vHa4a+IgFA1Pw=; b=BlOxai32l1QXMkvYteWyYYByvjaClnix4dUvC7P8IbdPlewBG66sZIvcFgfTLux90U UYr5Tetf7TvbDLX9pz34yCHaIbSs2l1hPm83K/fPBRSloanPg9Ci76tkPb/ieCL4H6ar xV/6UKUOTCxp63GY5LQJrqsFIeE/k0fw5WJCM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=tQri6bomdHsOK1pyVfY7RSzfOnDPIk7EDRxerQSz6+Od0agSoGH/I61XAJPiCAFovY mcLbya/kKFl86/+8TnNAh7gAJxUg+5vMhJrJf1kK2iy8i6jDgFk8nhlkdp1CeVaQ7L2a ZXLG0tuVQ9rkvlg/uKm3/6i9sjkSW+gzJxhKw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.113.199 with SMTP id b7mr7018598faq.82.1238662968920; Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:02:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <54A338F9-D66C-4406-804C-7443798931C8@humph.com> References: <22800054.post@talk.nabble.com> <49D27F5C.7030506@elischer.org> <54A338F9-D66C-4406-804C-7443798931C8@humph.com> Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:02:48 +0200 Message-ID: <75e73d840904020202q28db47e6u663a9e0bfb32a6e@mail.gmail.com> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Z=F6ld?= To: julian@elischer.org, Giuliano Gavazzi Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary=001636c597b8424a4504668eb268 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 7.1 IPv6 multihoming problem X-BeenThere: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: IPFW Technical Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2009 09:24:11 -0000 --001636c597b8424a4504668eb268 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi guys! I attached my testbed! It's a small testbed, I don't need to look onto the internet. The wlan gets an address from 2001:738:2001:2082::/64 Th= e phone gets an address from 2001:738:2001:20a9::/64 The server in the 2001:738:2001:2081:/64 network. I would like to make some SCTP failover measurement between the laptop and SCTP server. I need a solution where the packets go via the proper interfaces. (ipfw fwd doesn't work) Static routes don't operate, because the packets always out on the default gateway. I work on my thesis and I haven't got too much time. Can you explain an exact solution? Regards G=E1bor Z=F6ld 2009/4/1 Giuliano Gavazzi > > Sorry Julian, I wrongly sent my reply to you! > > On T 31 Mar, 2009, at 22:38 , Julian Elischer wrote: > > zgabe wrote: >> >>> Hi All, I am using laptop, FreeBSD 7.1 connecting to two ISPs (wlan and >>> ppp) and I >>> have IPv6 addresses. 'netstat -rn' says there is only one default gatew= ay >>> (for example wlan's default gateway). My problem is the following: If I >>> ping the ppp tunnel from an other computer, my laptop recieves the >>> ICMP6 echo request over the ppp tunnel, but it answers over the wlan >>> interface. I read some similar posts (only ipv4) about forwarding with >>> IPFW, >>> but I was unable to solve my problem until now. >>> >> >> [...] > >> >> the theory with multihoming is that unless you are the holder of a class= -C >> (/24) you basically have to do it using NAT. >> You have to make some subset of your traffic use one NAT while the >> remainder uses another (or is untranslated). >> Unfortunately we don't have NAT for IPV6. I don't know how that >> gets solved.. >> > > I am not sure I understand how NAT would solve the routing problem. Doesn= 't > a packet have the next hop set according to the destination, that is > anything not for a locally attached network will go to the default router= ? > Zgabe is correct in trying to use fwd, I use that to route packets > according to the source. I use this method, in ipv4, although perhaps too > intrusively as I also fwd packets that should go to the default route (wh= ich > could be instead just accept'ed), but this is another topic. > > For zgabe problem, aren't packets coming from the pppaddress going throug= h > the ppp interface. So why don't you try to select them by the interface (= and > the direction they go through it, as in out xmit ppp) rather than by > protocol? Not sure how will you enter an ipv6 address as a forwarding one= , > it does not work on my setup (macos). > > g > --001636c597b8424a4504668eb268--