From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 23 12:02:16 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 730BC16A49A for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:02:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from baldur@foo.is) Received: from gremlin.foo.is (gremlin.foo.is [194.105.250.10]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2F6543DB4 for ; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:02:15 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from baldur@foo.is) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (localhost.foo.is [127.0.0.1]) by injector.foo.is (Postfix) with SMTP id BC1FCDA85D; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:02:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: by gremlin.foo.is (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 05528DA842; Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:02:09 +0000 (GMT) Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 12:02:08 +0000 From: Baldur Gislason To: Christopher Martin Message-ID: <20060623120208.GH36671@gremlin.foo.is> References: <52se08$ad99g9@iinet-mail.icp-qv1-irony6.iinet.net.au> In-Reply-To: <52se08$ad99g9@iinet-mail.icp-qv1-irony6.iinet.net.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.4 (2005-06-05) on gremlin.foo.is X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=6.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Sanitizer: Foo MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline Cc: FreeBSD Net Mailing list Subject: Re: 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 12:02:16 -0000 Well, round robin is really not what you want with IP packets. And how are you going to detect that a route is good without a routing protocol? Baldur On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 08:40:09PM +1000, Christopher Martin wrote: > 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 > _______________________________________________ > 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" >