Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 13:50:34 -0600 (MDT) From: Nick Rogness <nick@rapidnet.com> To: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> Cc: "Marinos J . Yannikos" <mjy@pobox.com>, nino@inode.at, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: routing bug(?) persists (PR 16318) Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0006151347520.69565-100000@rapidnet.com> In-Reply-To: <200006151951.MAA00547@mass.osd.bsdi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Mike Smith wrote: > > >My ISP claims that the configuration above works trivially under > > >Linux and Windows NT, > > > > I would like to see that. > > > > Mr. Smith is correct. Why not set your gateway as the next-hop > > address to your ISP upstream within the 195.58.183.77 network? > > > > Another option would to run an IP tunnel between your network and > > the gateway using gif or nos-tun. > > > > The whole question is, What are you trying to accomplish? > > I spent some more time thinking about this, and I think the deal is that > if you do this on both sides, you achieve the result where you can > crosstalk between the two networks without requiring a gateway. > > It's kinda ugly, but it's basically what route add -iface is there for, > and it makes sense that if ARP is happy ARPing for these hosts, the route > code should also consider these hosts as directly connected. Interior routing protocols can be used in this fashion. OSPF and Cisco's EIGRP use this technique as well. You CAN use this but you are relying on other things to be intact (like routes) before it works properly. Nick Rogness - Speak softly and carry a Gigabit switch. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0006151347520.69565-100000>