Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2000 18:23:16 -0500 (EST) From: John Ioannidis <ji@research.att.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Help, I'm stuck! Weird network/routing question. Message-ID: <200001062323.SAA29559@bual.research.att.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Here is the setup:
Hosts alice and bob, running 3.4-STABLE, xl interfaces.
on alice:
# ifconfig xl1 10.1.1.1 up netmask 255.255.255.255
# netstat -r -n
...
10.1.1.1/32 link#2 UC 0 0 xl1
...
# ping 10.1.1.1
(yes, it pings fine)
# netstat -r -n
...
10.1.1.1 0:10:4b:63:80:33 UHLW 0 4 lo0 =>
10.1.1.1/32 link#2 UC 0 0 xl1
...
So far, everything is fine.
Do the same on bob;
# ifconfig xl1 10.1.1.2 up netmask 255.255.255.255
bob can also ping himself.
Now, how to ping bob from alice?
The obvious thing would be to say
# route add -interface 10.1.1.2 10.1.1.1
which creates the following routing entry:
10.1.1.2 10.1.1.1 UHS 0 60 xl1
which of course doesn't work.
So, what's the right way to do this? (No, I can't have a shorter
subnet mask and put both interfaces on the same subnet! Needless to
say, what I've described is the simplified problem). There has to be
a way to tell the routing code "this address may not look like it's on
any of your subnets, but the way to reach it is to ARP for it through
interface xl1". There was definitely a way of doing this back in the
SunOS 4 (and before) days.
Help?
/ji
--
John Ioannidis * Secure Systems Research Department * AT&T Labs - Research
OUR COMMON BOND: Respect for Individuals * Dedication to Helping Customers
Highest Standards of Integrity * Innovation * Teamwork
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200001062323.SAA29559>