Date: Sun, 7 Dec 1997 17:15:45 -0800 (PST) From: Ulf Zimmermann <ulf@Alameda.net> To: perhaps@yes.no (Eivind Eklund) Cc: brian@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Route behaviour (was Re: cvs commit: src/usr.sbin/ppp command.c ppp.8 route.c) Message-ID: <199712080115.RAA12140@Gatekeeper.Alameda.net> In-Reply-To: <8690twpu17.fsf@bitbox.follo.net> from Eivind Eklund at "Dec 8, 97 01:17:56 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Brian Somers <brian@FreeBSD.ORG> writes: > > > brian 1997/12/06 20:09:16 PST > > > > Modified files: > > usr.sbin/ppp command.c ppp.8 route.c > > Log: > > Only allow one arg to `delete' - the mask & gateway aren't necessary. > > Delete AF_LINK routes as well as AF_INET. > > Allow the word `default' as the arg to `delete' or in place of the > > first two args (dest & netmask) to `add'. > > Accept INTERFACE as the third arg to `add'. > > > > You can now say `add default interface' to create a default route > > through the tun interface. It's reported that subsequent bind()s > > will bind to a broadcast address and not to the address currently > > assigned to the tun device - this is the first step towards > > supporting that first connection that was around from before the > > dynamic IP negotiation.... > > I've been thinking a bit more about it, and now I consider this > binding a bug. With an interface route to an interface with no > assigned address, we're actually sending packets onto the network that > hasn't got a legit source address. Looking at Ciscos way, they have the command "ip unnumbered <interface>", which tells the Cisco to use as the source address, the ip of a different interface. Then you can add a route to the unnumbered interface and packets will be sent with the src of the used interface, like: interface ethernet 0 ip address 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0 interface serial 0 ip unnumbered ethernet 0 ip route 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 serial 0 > > This works for the single case where there is a NAT engine at the > other end of that link, but that is also the _only_ case it works for. > > I'm still a bit uncertain about what would be the best approach - > probably binding to another interface in the machine. That's weird > too, but probably less surprising never the less > > What do other people think? Is this feasible given the way routing is > implemented in the FreeBSD kernel? I like the way Cisco is doing it and wouldn't mind to see it on FreeBSD. > > Eivind. > Ulf. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Ulf Zimmermann, 1525 Pacific Ave., Alameda, CA-94501, #: 510-769-2936 Alameda Networks, Inc. | http://www.Alameda.net | Fax#: 510-521-5073
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199712080115.RAA12140>