From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Aug 24 19:00:50 2010
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: net@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C91EF1065679
	for <net@freebsd.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:00:50 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from qing.li@bluecoat.com)
Received: from whisker.bluecoat.com (whisker.bluecoat.com [216.52.23.28])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADC668FC12
	for <net@freebsd.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:00:50 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from bcs-mail03.internal.cacheflow.com ([10.2.2.95])
	by whisker.bluecoat.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id o7OJ0ook007649;
	Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:00:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 12:00:33 -0700
Message-ID: <B583FBF374231F4A89607B4D08578A4307F1FF79@bcs-mail03.internal.cacheflow.com>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1008242027390.12708@filebunker.xip.at>
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: funny ECMP
Thread-Index: ActDuicygMPFGSOBQ8qHQwOT7uo29wAAGd/Q
References: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1008230154280.29368@filebunker.xip.at>
	<alpine.LFD.2.00.1008240144350.12708@filebunker.xip.at>
	<B583FBF374231F4A89607B4D08578A4307F1FC70@bcs-mail03.internal.cacheflow.com>
	<alpine.LFD.2.00.1008240223240.12708@filebunker.xip.at>
	<alpine.LFD.2.00.1008242005160.12708@filebunker.xip.at>
	<B583FBF374231F4A89607B4D08578A4307F1FF22@bcs-mail03.internal.cacheflow.com>
	<alpine.LFD.2.00.1008242027390.12708@filebunker.xip.at>
From: "Li, Qing" <qing.li@bluecoat.com>
To: "Ingo Flaschberger" <if@xip.at>
Cc: net@freebsd.org
Subject: RE: funny ECMP
X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD <freebsd-net.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-net>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net>,
	<mailto:freebsd-net-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:00:50 -0000

Hi,

I am trying to figure out, if the routing table have=20

	10.13.13.0/24	10.11.11.1
	10.13.13.0/24	link#1

And if I do "ssh 10.13.13.2", which route should be used?

-- Qing


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ingo Flaschberger [mailto:if@xip.at]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 11:28 AM
> To: Li, Qing
> Cc: net@freebsd.org
> Subject: RE: funny ECMP
>=20
> Dear Li,
>=20
> > The indirect route is colliding with the interface route, both have
> > the same mask.
> >
> > How do you expect this to work ?
> >
> > How would the routing code differentiate between on-link nodes and
> > the those needing to be routed through 10.11.11.1 ?
>=20
> in_lltable_rtcheck
>          if (rt =3D=3D NULL || (!(flags & LLE_PUB) &&
>                             ((rt->rt_flags & RTF_GATEWAY) ||
>                              (rt->rt_ifp !=3D ifp)))) {
> RTF_GATEWAY?
>=20
> Kind regards,
>  	Ingo Flaschberger