From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jul 12 19:19:28 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06E8D16A41F for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:19:28 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from parrot.aev.net (parrot.aev.net [212.31.247.179]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E4D513C46C for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:19:27 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from soth.ventu ([151.77.235.121]) (authenticated bits=128) by parrot.aev.net (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l6CJVJFo031024 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:31:25 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Received: from alamar.ventu (alamar.ventu [10.1.2.18]) by soth.ventu (8.14.1/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l6CJK4I5010469; Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:20:05 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from ml@netfence.it) Message-ID: <46967EB1.9050405@netfence.it> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 21:19:13 +0200 From: Andrea Venturoli User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070617) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Josh Paetzel References: <4695FEF4.4030708@netfence.it> <469616B2.2020803@aws-net.org.ua> <46961C0B.6060004@netfence.it> <200707120745.03102.josh@tcbug.org> In-Reply-To: <200707120745.03102.josh@tcbug.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.61 on 212.31.247.179 Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Again two ADSL lines, routing problems 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: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 19:19:28 -0000 Josh Paetzel ha scritto: > errrm, in pf I can give you a concrete example of how to deal with > this. Thank you very much. Please see also my reply to Artyom. > Your question seemed to imply that you don't want to load-balance or > really even do round-robin NAT and you're fine with manually cutting > over the default route in case a link fails, but the problem you are > having is that the responses to incoming connections go out the > default route, which doesn't work. Yes, this is the main problem. I might be interested in load-balance, but it's much less important. Besides, what I described is part of a larger setup, so this is already partly implemented. bye & Thanks av.