Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1998 10:20:19 -0400 From: "Cambria, Mike" <MCambria@lucent.com> To: "'Doug White'" <dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu> Cc: "'freebsd-questions@freebsd.org'" <freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Router Discovery using routed(8) Message-ID: <813D2854D1B0D1118236006097177581036ACE@smtp.Lucentmmit.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>224.* is the multicast network. It may not be set up correctly on your
>router(s) but you still have static references in /etc/rc.conf. Unless
>you're using multicast you can ignore these.
But I can't ignore these. The router solicitations sent by routed never
hit the wire. Thus a router is never discovered. The route table has
just 2 entries, 127.0.0.0 and the one for the local LAN.
It seems that router discovery client is using the route table to find
the "next hop" when it should not be doing so for multicast.
When I use broadcast in lieu of multicast (/etc/gateways configured with
bcast_rdisc) things work.
When I use gated for router discovery client (with multicast) I do *not*
see the problem I described with routed.
MikeC
Michael C. Cambria Lucent Technologies
Member of Technical Staff Bell Labs Innovations
Voice: (978) 287 - 2807 300 Baker Avenue
Fax: (978) 287 - 2810 Concord, Massachusetts 01742
Internet: mcambria@lucent.com <mailto:mcambria@lucent.com>
-----Original Message-----
From: dwhite@gdi.uoregon.edu [SMTP:dwhite@gdi.uoregon.edu]
Sent: Saturday, April 11, 1998 2:53 AM
To: Michael C Cambria
Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject: Re: Router Discovery using routed(8)
On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Michael C Cambria wrote:
> What I don't understand when testing the route discovery client is why
I
> am seeing sendto(224.0.0.2) "No Route to Host" and sendto(224.0.0.9)
"No
> Route to Host" messages at boot time (as well as at regular intervals
after
> boot.) What I add a default route to rc.conf and reboot, I don't see
these
> messages anymore (even when the default router is to a non-existant
> gateway.) So it seems that router discover in routed wants a route to
> exist to 224.0.0.0
>
> Doesn't the need to define a route defeat the purpose of router
discovery?
Doug White | University of Oregon
Internet: dwhite@resnet.uoregon.edu | Residence Networking Assistant
http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~dwhite | Computer Science Major
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?813D2854D1B0D1118236006097177581036ACE>