Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2004 10:36:19 +0300 From: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@cell.sick.ru> To: Georgi Moskov <moskov@telecoms.bg> Cc: freebsd-isp@freebsd.org Subject: Re: BGP solution ? Message-ID: <20040122073619.GA22400@cell.sick.ru> In-Reply-To: <52092.217.79.66.142.1074725883.squirrel@k> References: <3446.217.79.79.166.1074685509.squirrel@k> <20040121115246.GA17996@cell.sick.ru> <52092.217.79.66.142.1074725883.squirrel@k>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Jan 22, 2004 at 12:58:03AM +0200, Georgi Moskov wrote: G> > G> --- B --- G> > G> / \ G> > G> / \ 6802:100 G> > G> 194.141.24.0/24 -- A C ----------- F G> > G> \ / 6802:200 G> > G> \ / G> > G> --- D --- G> > G> G> > G> in such a way, that traffic to/from 194.141.24.0/24 and prefixes marked G> > G> widh 6802:100 to pass through router B and traffic to/from 6802:200 to G> > G> pass through router D ? (the ruters use zebra) <==skip==> G> Correct me if I'm wrong but in my understanding router C can have only 1 G> active path for 194.141.24.0/24 (the best one) and if so, then it will G> route traffic to it just through one of the interfaces. You are right. Desired behavior of incoming traffic can be obtained only by means of policy routing. In FreeBSD I see no way to combine "ipfw fwd" feature and zebra. -- Totus tuus, Glebius. GLEBIUS-RIPN GLEB-RIPE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040122073619.GA22400>