From owner-freebsd-net@freebsd.org Wed Nov 25 12:53:02 2015 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4E6CA37B85 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:53:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@vega.codepro.be) Received: from venus.codepro.be (venus.codepro.be [IPv6:2a01:4f8:162:1127::2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.codepro.be", Issuer "Gandi Standard SSL CA 2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A4D513E2 for ; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:53:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kp@vega.codepro.be) Received: from vega.codepro.be (unknown [172.16.1.3]) by venus.codepro.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A292D9F5; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 13:52:58 +0100 (CET) Received: by vega.codepro.be (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 8637A1AAA6; Wed, 25 Nov 2015 13:52:58 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 13:52:58 +0100 From: Kristof Provost To: Daniel Bilik Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Outgoing packets being sent via wrong interface Message-ID: <20151125125258.GB2469@vega.codepro.be> References: <20151120155511.5fb0f3b07228a0c829fa223f@neosystem.org> <20151120163431.3449a473db9de23576d3a4b4@neosystem.org> <20151121212043.GC2307@vega.codepro.be> <20151122130240.165a50286cbaa9288ffc063b@neosystem.cz> <20151125092145.e93151af70085c2b3393f149@neosystem.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151125092145.e93151af70085c2b3393f149@neosystem.cz> X-Checked-By-NSA: Probably User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2015 12:53:02 -0000 On 2015-11-25 09:21:45 (+0100), Daniel Bilik wrote: > Touching nothing else (pf etc.), not rebooting, just "refreshing" the > default route entry, and the problem disappeared. > I was still inclined to suspect pf based on your previous findings, because pf subscribes to IP address (and group) information, so changing those could have triggered something in pf. It doesn't subscribe to routing information though, so right now it does look unlikely to be a pf issue. Regards, Kristof