From owner-freebsd-net Mon Jul 2 1:52: 1 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from whale.sunbay.crimea.ua (whale.sunbay.crimea.ua [212.110.138.65]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED28C37B409 for ; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 01:51:49 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from ru@whale.sunbay.crimea.ua) Received: (from ru@localhost) by whale.sunbay.crimea.ua (8.11.2/8.11.2) id f628pTb68472; Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:51:29 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from ru) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2001 11:51:29 +0300 From: Ruslan Ermilov To: Wes Peters Cc: net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Indirect route with also indirect gateway (was: Re: fastforwarding?) Message-ID: <20010702115129.A67459@sunbay.com> Mail-Followup-To: Wes Peters , net@FreeBSD.ORG References: <20010626093545.D49992@sunbay.com> <3B3AB4F8.184A2EFE@softweyr.com> <20010629112757.F91115@sunbay.com> <3B3F930C.320CC3DC@softweyr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <3B3F930C.320CC3DC@softweyr.com>; from wes@softweyr.com on Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 03:15:56PM -0600 Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 03:15:56PM -0600, Wes Peters wrote: > Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > > > > BTW, Wes, I'm still waiting for a working example of an indirect route > > with also indirect gateway. > > Any indirect route via the opposite end of a point-to-point connection. > Right? > You probably meant that the gateway is accessible via the opposite end. But the gateway value on a P2P link is a no-op. Whatever gateway you specify, the actual gateway is always the "opposite end". Here, the gateway only helps the routing code to select the right interface. I.e., on a 1.1.1.1 -> 2.2.2.2 configured tun0 interface, the following two commands are equivalent: route add -net 10 2.2.2.2 route add -net 10 -iface tun0 Funny though that you're giving this example, as it only works starting with revision 1.62 (from June 4, 2001) of sys/net/route.c. Before this, routing code incorrectly set up the interface based on destination, not the gateway: # ifconfig tun0 tun0: flags=8051 mtu 1500 inet 1.1.1.1 --> 2.2.2.2 netmask 0xff000000 # netstat -rn Routing tables Internet: Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire default 192.168.4.65 UGSc 1 0 rl0 2.2.2.2 1.1.1.1 UH 0 0 tun0 3.3.3.3 tun0 UHS 1 0 tun0 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 1 6 lo0 192.168.4 link#1 UC 3 0 rl0 => 192.168.4.65 0:d0:b7:16:9c:c6 UHLW 2 1576 rl0 899 192.168.4.115 0:c0:df:3:2d:79 UHLW 2 2 lo0 # route add -net 10 3.3.3.3 add net 10: gateway 3.3.3.3 # netstat -rn | grep 3.3.3.3 3.3.3.3 tun0 UHS 1 0 tun0 10 3.3.3.3 UGSc 0 0 rl0 ^^^^ oops I still think we should disallow such routes on non-P2P interfaces, at least. What do you think? Cheers, -- Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA, ru@sunbay.com Sunbay Software AG, ru@FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer, +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message