From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 18 06:15:43 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80C3A16A422 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:15:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from michael@staff.openaccess.org) Received: from smtp.openaccess.org (smtp.openaccess.org [66.165.52.46]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DC6843D58 for ; Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:15:30 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from michael@staff.openaccess.org) Received: from [10.0.1.6] (unknown [216.57.214.93]) by smtp.openaccess.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EFAC6D4717; Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:15:29 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20060316193740.GE11850@spc.org> References: <014e01c64928$6107abd0$020b000a@bartwrkstxp> <20060316193740.GE11850@spc.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v746.2) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Michael DeMan Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2006 22:15:42 -0800 To: Bruce M Simpson X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.746.2) Cc: "freebsd-net@FreeBSD.org" , Bart Van Kerckhove Subject: Re: OT - Quagga/CARP X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 06:15:43 -0000 Hi All, Thanks for the information. This is a huge problem for me, we badly need redundancy capabilities. I'm surprised something like this hasn't been addressed long ago. I guess a lot of the focus is on SMP and 'big servers' and not router/appliance functionality in the newer FBSD releases. Anyway, thanks very much for the information. I'm going to have to figure out some kind of workaround on my architecture. In the worst case, I can shut off OSPF on the edge routers and use static routes upstream and OSPF from there, but that is going to be a real nightmare for network maintenance over the long haul. Thanks for the information anyway. This has been driving me nuts the past few months. - mike On Mar 16, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Bruce M Simpson wrote: > On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 07:35:20PM +0100, Bart Van Kerckhove wrote: >> Is this by design, or just lack of time/interest? >> If anyone feels up to the task of fixing/implementing what's >> needed to make >> this work, we'd be happy to sponsor its development. > > This is a collision between the connected route implicitly created > by configuring an interface which has the same prefix length as > an existing route in the FreeBSD FIB. > > This is a known issue and is by design. > > Most BSD-derived implementations have this limitation. It needs to be > resolved in preparation for equal-cost multipath. > > Sadly whilst I'd be more than happy to work on this (with or without > funding), I don't have the free time to do so, but I may be able to > eke out spare time to look at patches. > > Regards, > BMS > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >