Date: Wed, 6 May 1998 06:26:43 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: Greg Skafte <skafte@worldgate.com> Cc: "Victor M. Mondragon A." <mdragon@vera.net>, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Have I left something out? Message-ID: <l03130300b175f534fbfc@[208.2.87.7]> In-Reply-To: <19980505232651.54171@worldgate.com> References: <l03130309b17548f08291@[208.2.87.7]>; from Richard Wackerbarth on Tue, May 05, 1998 at 05:54:46PM -0500 <l03130307b1751c02f492@[208.2.87.7]> <Pine.BSF.3.96.980505171959.7131A-100000@cache.reco> <l03130309b17548f08291@[208.2.87.7]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:26 AM -0500 5/6/98, Greg Skafte wrote: >the default BSD kernels do not accept multiple routes to the same >desitation... >on hackers a few months back someone talked about a multiple paths kernel >hack .... in turn you would then have to modify gated or routed to accept and >process multipath routes .... > > >as a side note what dynamic routing protocol are you using to attempt to do >this .... > >Quoting Richard Wackerbarth (rkw@dataplex.net) >On Subject: Re: Have I left something out? >Date: Tue, May 05, 1998 at 05:54:46PM -0500 > >> At 5:22 PM -0500 5/5/98, Victor M. Mondragon A. wrote: >> >On Tue, 5 May 1998, Richard Wackerbarth wrote: >> >[...munch...] >> > >> >> I wanted to have redundant connections so that if one goes down, another >> >> can be used. >> > >> >[...munch...] >> > >> >Try routed(8) or gated(1), these take care of dynamic routing. >> >> I am already doing that. That is what changes the tables. >> However, it does not seem to find the back door. Thanks for the reply. Since I am not really looking for multi-path routing, the simple route discovery SHOULD work OK. In fact, it does on all machines other than the one where the down network is attached. When the once removed machine quits getting the route from the attached machine, it quits broadcasting it. As a result, the route decays and gets replaced with the alternate route that is still active. However on the machine which has the point of failure, even though the interface is marked "down", it still insists that that is THE route to any machines which would be on that net. I think that I will try moving an "essential service" daemon onto an alias in the lo0 interface and see if a route to it gets spread properly. Richard Wackerbarth To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03130300b175f534fbfc>