From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 23 10:40:12 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 3510016A47E for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:40:12 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from outsidefactor@iinet.net.au) Received: from mail-ihug.icp-qv1-irony6.iinet.net.au (ihug-mail.icp-qv1-irony6.iinet.net.au [203.59.1.224]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B0C343D46 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:40:10 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from outsidefactor@iinet.net.au) Received: from 124-168-5-137.dyn.iinet.net.au (HELO SAURON) ([124.168.5.137]) by mail-ihug.icp-qv1-irony6.iinet.net.au with ESMTP; 23 Jun 2006 18:40:06 +0800 Message-Id: <52se08$ad99g9@iinet-mail.icp-qv1-irony6.iinet.net.au> X-BrightmailFiltered: true X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAA== X-IronPort-AV: i="4.06,168,1149436800"; d="scan'208"; a="349480457:sNHT17873352" From: "Christopher Martin" To: "FreeBSD Net Mailing list" Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 20:40:09 +1000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 Thread-Index: AcaWsWXT8jjrVr/ZSJ2PUwWts5Q6tA== X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.3790.2663 Subject: Multiple routes to the same destination 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: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 10:40:12 -0000 There is probably some good reason for this, but there is just one thing that seems very lacking from FreeBSD, and that's the ability to put in multiple routes in the table the same destination. Now, I am sure a lot of people are saying "You idiot, use OSPF/BGP/RIP if you want fail over!" But that's not what I want! In the case of just about every other OS today you can put in as many routes as you like, and it will use any routes to a destination in a round robin, assuming they have equivalent, preferable metrics. Sort of poor mans load balancing. This also prevents protocols like OSPF from entering multiple routes to destination networks even if they have the same cost. People have tried to overcome this in the past with ipfw rules: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2005-July/093285.html The best this solution (more of a hack, really) can do is route sessions back out the same interface they came in. Is there a good reason? If there isn't one, how much work will it take to fix? I have to admit that it frustrates me enough to at least have a crack at fixing it myself, even though I am no expert 1337 coder. Please pardon my ignorance! C Martin