From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 28 17:34:59 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B491916A41C for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:34:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from pi.codefab.com (pi.codefab.com [199.103.21.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DC5B43D4C for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:34:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C777D5E45; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:34:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from pi.codefab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pi.codefab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 22508-03; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:34:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-68-161-54-113.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.161.54.113]) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7936F5C43; Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:34:46 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <42C18A37.7060109@mac.com> Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 13:34:47 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger Organization: The Courts of Chaos User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.8) Gecko/20050511 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jeremie Le Hen References: <42C0DB3B.6000606@elischer.org> <20050628074640.GY1283@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> In-Reply-To: <20050628074640.GY1283@obiwan.tataz.chchile.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at codefab.com Cc: Julian Elischer , net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Julian's netowrking challenge 2005 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: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:34:59 -0000 Jeremie Le Hen wrote: [ ... ] > PS: I'm seeing more and more requests about routing limitations in > FreeBSD everyday, such as lack of multiple routing tables support, lack > of source routing (as well as higher level protocol based routing). > Are there actually some projects that are being worked on to overcome > this ? Sure. You can use IPFW to forward packets out via any interface you please, based on any of the matching critera that IPFW's rulesets permit. You can also run BGP/EGP sessions, OSPF, or other advanced routing protocols via routing daemons like zebra/quagga/gated/whatever in the ports collection. [ Most people don't understand Internet routing very well, they don't understand subnetting or supernetting, they don't understand CIDR, and they encounter problems which arise because they don't know how to set up a network topology which is appropriate for the actual task they want to perform. ] For the current problem, if you've got two servers which offer services to the Internet, and have public IPs assigned to them, putting these boxes behind NAT is causing problems because the topology doesn't match what the machines are actually doing. Set up what E. Zwicky calls a "screened subnet architecture" by moving these boxes into a seperate DMZ subnet, set up a local route for the rest of the clients on the firewall which indicate that these boxes can be reached via fxp0 rather than fxp1, so that traffic from the clients on the LAN stays local rather than going out through one T1 and back in via the other. -- -Chuck