Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 23:07:10 +0200 From: Hans Petter Selasky <hselasky@c2i.net> To: H <hm@hm.net.br> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org, sthaug@nethelp.no Subject: Re: How to bind a route to a network adapter and not IP Message-ID: <201206182307.10050.hselasky@c2i.net> In-Reply-To: <201206181803.41211.hm@hm.net.br> References: <4FDB6AA3.3040606@gmail.com> <201206181754.15680.hselasky@c2i.net> <201206181803.41211.hm@hm.net.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 18 June 2012 23:03:34 H wrote: > On Monday 18 June 2012 12:54 Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > On Monday 18 June 2012 00:00:51 H wrote: > > > sthaug@nethelp.no wrote: > > > >>> I loose packets because I use a WLAN adapter. Sometimes the link is > > > >>> down for various reasons, and then the routes start changing for > > > >>> manually created routes, and I want to prevent that. > > > >> > > > >> well that is certainly not a reason for changing routes > > > >> > > > >> I have the feeling you are not explaining good enough what really is > > > >> going on and it may help sending your configurations and an example > > > >> of routes and IP addresses before and after this route change > > > > > > > > Why is this so hard to understand? "Link down" leads to "static route > > > > is deleted". This is standard FreeBSD behavior, and has been this way > > > > for as long as I can remember (btw, I believe this behavior is from > > > > the original BSD, not FreeBSD specific). > > > > > > > > You can show this by having a static default route pointing to an > > > > address on an Ethernet interface which has link. And then pulling the > > > > TP cable from the Ethernet interface. Observe that the default route > > > > is automatically removed. > > > > > > may be you have not understood your own problem yet > > > > > > because so far is nothing to be understood because none of your > > > statements is correct, it is also not FreeBSD's standard behavior and > > > never has been > > > > > > as long as there is the valid IP address on the related interface, no > > > static route will be deleted, you can even boot without cable and the > > > [default] static route is there > > > > > > so you need to explain better your problem in order to understand it > > > > > > probably you have some other stuff running, thirdparty network manager > > > or something, incorrect or incomplete ppoe or dhc configuration or > > > whatever leads to the problem > > > > > > FYI static routes usually are the manually configured routes, so what > > > you say is redundant and not correct, I guess you're loosing some kind > > > of dynamic route > > > > > > since WL networks usually do not run RIP/OSPF/BGP I guess the route you > > > apparently loose is coming from some dhcp server and may be your > > > dhclient configuration is incomplete or none existent, but here now it > > > would be useful to see your config > > > > Hi, > > > > I think we need to distinguish between two matters. One is where the > > route is directly reachable on the local-net of the network adapter, and > > ARP is valid/responding. The second case is when the route is not > > directly reachable. The second case is where the problem happens, like > > Stian kindly explained. > > > > # For example: > > > > ifconfig wlan0 10.0.0.2 255.255.255.0 up > > > > # Assume the router is at 10.0.0.1 > > # And we want to reach a certain destination through 10.0.0.1 > > # Then we do: > > > > route add 10.22.1.1 10.0.0.1 > > no no no my friend, wrong again > > that is a static route and it goes away same way it was created, manually > or by deleting the IP address 10.0.0.2 from the related interface > > wether there is or not an active link on that interface does not matter > Hi, Can it be that dhclient which I'm running on this interface with manual routes disrupts stuff then ?? --HPS
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201206182307.10050.hselasky>