From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jun 12 11:37:02 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15D5E16A4CE for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:37:02 +0000 (GMT) Received: from gladiator.trusc.net (gladiator.trusc.net [196.22.225.196]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FB8343D41 for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:37:00 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from leon@trusc.net) Received: from [196.25.37.18] (helo=morpheus.trusc.net) by gladiator.trusc.net (Exim 4.24 #0 (FreeBSD 4.7)) protocol: esmtp id 1BZ6lW-000Oyy-ON for ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:33:40 +0200 Received: from [192.168.255.25] (helo=leonlap) by morpheus.trusc.net (Exim 4.34 #0 (FreeBSD 4.7)) protocol: esmtp id 1BZ6lG-000D2n-Dn ; Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:33:28 +0200 From: "Leon Botes" To: "'Ben Timby'" Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 13:33:28 +0200 Organization: Trusc Technologies (Pty) Ltd MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409 Thread-Index: AcRPz5A9uKhzBYfgSIm00a7Ex1rXWAAoTPZg In-Reply-To: <40C9DAC0.9030001@webexc.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) Message-Id: X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Routing question X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: leon@trusc.net List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:37:02 -0000 Well the reason is that our dsl connections are limited to a max speed of 512K in this country. So I thought of splitting the load between two dsl lines. If the box is able to do that dynamically then great. My question is how? -----Original Message----- From: Ben Timby [mailto:asp@webexc.com] Sent: 11 June 2004 18:16 To: leon@trusc.net; freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Routing question Perhaps if you post more info, we can come up with creative solutions for you. My big question is why? AFAIK, you cannot have more than one default gateway, unless you are using netgraph to balance between network interfaces. However, you could NAT C & D to their respective "public" interfaces. If E is a real IP, then the NATed traffic should flow to that interface. I would suggest using pf, as it is a most excellent firewall package. Here is the section of a PF guide regarding NAT. http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/nat.html Your rules would look like this (these are from memory, so sanity check them): -- #define your interfaces as macros: A = "fxp0" B = "fxp1" C = "fxp2" D = "fxp3" E = "fxp4" #define your NAT translations using our macros: nat on $A from ($C:network) to any -> $A nat on $B from ($D:network) to any -> $B #define your filtering rules: ... -- However, you will find that route add will not allow multiple default routes. You must use another package to allow for that, or at least it is beyond my knowledge. Let me know if you figure it out, I would be very interested. Leon Botes wrote: > I have a box with 5 nics. > Cal them A,B,C,D,E. > A & B are different internet connections. > E is a connection to a mail server on a public /29 C & D are > connections for 2 differnet client networks. > > Is it possible to have all traffic coming in via C sent to a default > gateway on A's network and all traffic coming in via D sent to a > default gateway on B's network. > And secondly will both client networks be able to see the E/29? > > If so how? > > Thanks > Leon > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"