From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 29 11:53:03 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F5C2319 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 11:53:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-la0-x22e.google.com (mail-la0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::22e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10DEE1F01 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 11:53:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-la0-f46.google.com with SMTP id eh20so5065969lab.33 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 03:53:01 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=cqr+edfLN9sZgLfM9yogi6MfDbrlq8hjuVDt2inG+rI=; b=K8czitWxYKxo3hKzCR6itYiVPiie/nWpyi9OX3EzjUltv5iLr/Zq2PPh1uPAxzoLbo UrsGJ5WWZd5AUB7BT8ucz2+3rMj+MCybmffDPeyYNFGWZozXZHLhmLaSLhgSE0KSaoaK IU6Ggx5R9l79fViUfvEg9rdXPszpvgl80yO9nNzFnhvS8FblfjoZ6CK0KxSAbyn8c6oG xOYgoiVyS1d0RJVY6W0z6nCcWr4ur5W39g0DYcMDIDxmxyoFQBIZ8FulpbUYalyLmGJ/ /eLAHdtS5i9dUYbP4a59dYASciB7gysRWWyNyaBd3i+RvzAlQJI9gkfly8HAKsIMEN0q phkA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.112.13.169 with SMTP id i9mr518253lbc.73.1388317980912; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 03:53:00 -0800 (PST) Sender: ndenev@gmail.com Received: by 10.114.242.33 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Dec 2013 03:53:00 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 11:53:00 +0000 X-Google-Sender-Auth: pWEP6HXGssoEP_f3Gqgkf70YLCI Message-ID: Subject: Re: Issues putting jails on their own subnet From: Nikolay Denev To: Andrew Klaus Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.17 Cc: "freebsd-net@freebsd.org" X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2013 11:53:03 -0000 Hmm, you are right. I'm pretty sure I was able to do this before running 9.1 however I've tried now on 10 and it fails. Quick search suggests some changes that might prevent the route to be deleted : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head/2013-March/045550.html --Nikolay On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 4:48 AM, Andrew Klaus wrote: > Hmm.. I did try it that way earlier, but I'm getting the same issue: > > # setfib 2 netstat -rn > Routing tables > > Internet: > Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire > default 10.0.3.1 UGS 0 0 vlan3 > 10.0.4.0/24 link#13 U 0 0 vlan4 > 10.0.4.13/32 link#13 U 0 0 vlan4 > 10.0.4.16/32 link#13 U 0 0 vlan4 > 127.0.0.1 link#10 UH 0 0 lo0 > > > # setfib 2 route delete 10.0.4.0/24 > route: writing to routing socket: Address already in use > delete net 10.0.4.0 fib 2: gateway uses the same route > > > Is there a way to delete it without deleting the IP from the interface? > > Thanks, > > Andrew > > > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 6:28 PM, Nikolay Denev wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I meant to delete the route from FIB 1, not from the main FIB, like >> "setfib 1 route delete 10.0.3.0/24" >> >> Anyways, good that you made it work using the tunable. >> >> Cheers, >> >> --Nikolay >> >> >> On Sun, Dec 29, 2013 at 12:30 AM, Andrew Klaus wrote: >> >>> It doesn't seem to let me delete it (first thing I tried).. Gives me this >>> error: >>> >>> # route delete 10.0.3.0/24 >>> route: writing to routing socket: Address already in use >>> delete net 10.0.3.0 fib 0: gateway uses the same route >>> >>> However, using the tunable, then works perfectly. >>> >>> Thanks! >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Nikolay Denev >>> wrote: >>> >>> > Hi Andrew, >>> > >>> > Actually you should be able to override this routing entry by just >>> > deleting it, or you can also check if "net.add_addr_allfibs" sysctl can >>> > help you. >>> > >>> > >>> > --Nikolay >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Dec 28, 2013 at 10:05 PM, Andrew Klaus >> >wrote: >>> > >>> >> Hello, >>> >> >>> >> I'm trying to segregate some of my jails onto their own (DMZ) subnet. >>> >> >>> >> Internal subnet: 10.0.3.0/24 >>> >> DMZ subnet: 10.0.4.0/24 >>> >> >>> >> Both of these subnets are on my FreeBSD host, but I'm using a second >>> >> routing table for my DMZ jails as seen here: >>> >> >>> >> --------------- >>> >> setfib 1 netstat -rn >>> >> Routing tables >>> >> >>> >> Internet: >>> >> Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif >>> Expire >>> >> default 10.0.4.1 UGS 0 2393945 vlan4 >>> >> 10.0.3.0/24 link#12 U 0 0 vlan3 >>> >> ---------------- >>> >> >>> >> The problem I'm facing, is when I try to connect to the DMZ'd jail >>> from >>> >> the >>> >> 10.0.3.0 network, traffic comes in on vlan4 like it's supposed to, but >>> >> replies back through on the vlan3 interface. I guess this makes sense, >>> >> because of that second route entry (that I can't override). >>> >> >>> >> I've tried using PF to force the packets back through to 10.0.4.1, >>> but it >>> >> doesn't seem to want to work. Is the only other way to use the >>> >> experimental vnet/vimage? >>> >> >>> >> Any ideas would be helpful. >>> >> >>> >> Thanks, >>> >> >>> >> Andrew >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> 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 >>> " >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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" >>> >> >> >