From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jan 13 15:20:17 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CE3B16A41F for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:20:17 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tomjobbins@gmail.com) Received: from wproxy.gmail.com (wproxy.gmail.com [64.233.184.193]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBA1343D68 for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:20:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tomjobbins@gmail.com) Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 70so659898wra for ; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 07:20:09 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=e/BqfkDYQDcO5w/gBEGBPwNEtZIdqQjYN8ZyK7awqVKik3lnqJqerbIfe3HOERMXUW3LytV+bDSEcVb/ZSu6jEKT8sfblPmBAn7SZS3n4L22mMjucXZYv96T8bGLyR8LE6AuXKKwg0iv6UQ3BXofzWSlb4OREUmQ4SNeH30OPng= Received: by 10.64.53.18 with SMTP id b18mr1867954qba; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 07:20:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.185.7 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jan 2006 07:20:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:20:08 +0000 From: Tom Jobbins To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <200601131309.24446.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <200601131309.24446.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Subject: Re: Two PPP connections to the same ISP with same remote gateway X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 15:20:17 -0000 Thanks for replying, Daniel This is really odd, because I don't see this on my machines (as per our > discussion on IRC which you mention below), I did.. > > midget# cat /dev/tun & > [1] 21524 > midget# cat /dev/tun & > [2] 21525 I've isolated the difference. If I repeat exactly what you do - including the two cat /dev/tun commands - then it works for me too. So long as the tun0 and tun1 interfaces are created with a cat /dev/tun &, I am able to give them matching remote gateway addresses. However this is not the case when the interfaces are created any other way, i.e. via ppp. Ditto ng0/ng1 created by mpd. Also, if I then kill the cat /dev/tun commands, leaving tun0 and tun1 existing, but unopened, I am then no longer able to set the matching gateway. And if I don't kill the cat commands, ppp can't use those tun devices because another process has them open. So it would appear this was just a dead end. I don't know whats different about an interface created with the cat command - perhaps as it's not connected to a real network utility, the normal route checking does not apply? If you - or anyone else - has any more ideas as to what I can try to make this work, I would be most grateful. It's incredibly frustrating to be limited in this way, given that I'm almost certain that ipfilters source-based routing will get around any routing issues if I could only bring the interfaces up. Thanks Tom