Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 12 Mar 2018 20:42:20 +0000
From:      Grzegorz Junka <list1@gjunka.com>
To:        freebsd-net@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Incorrect route interface
Message-ID:  <f619ee3a-8af0-9aaa-b377-5dad83d3d70a@gjunka.com>
In-Reply-To: <201803122013.w2CKDwSH080298@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
References:  <201803122013.w2CKDwSH080298@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On 12/03/2018 20:13, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>> On 12/03/2018 18:04, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
>>>> On 11/03/2018 20:57, Marek Zarychta wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 05:46:52PM +0000, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/03/2018 06:04, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
>>>>>>> 11.03.2018 7:01, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just do not assign addresses from same network 10.20.0.0/16 to different network interfaces
>>>>>>>>> and you will be fine. Assign them all to right interface:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ifconfig_em0="inet 10.20.2.14 netmask 255.255.0.0"
>>>>>>>>> ifconfig_em0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.15/32"
>>>>>>>>> ifconfig_igb0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.16/32"
>>>>>>> Interfaces meant to be all equal, last line should be:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ifconfig_em0_alias1="inet 10.20.2.16/32"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, I see. So this is in case I want many IPs assigned to the same
>>>>>> interface. What if I want one IP assigned to multiple interfaces (i.e.
>>>>>> so that the additional igb0-3 effectively work as a 4-port switch)?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Please consider bonding all NICs as one bridge(4) interface. Then
>>>>> multiple IPs could be assigned to such interface.
>>>>>
>>>> Many thanks Eugene and Marek for your suggestions. I will now need to
>>>> decide if I want to fragment the network into subnets or bridge the
>>>> interfaces.
>>>> GregJ
>>> I believe some of the problem you are experincing is addressed
>>> in this differential:
>>> https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14547
>>>
>>> Your original configuration was(is) valid, just not common,
>>> and I have not seen this done in more than a decade, but it
>>> seems as if rstone@ also has someone doing this "multiple IP's
>>> into same subnet on seperate interfaces".
>>>
>> Thanks for the link. That's interesting. According to this post that
>> configuration shouldn't be valid:
>>
>> https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/multiple-network-interfaces-on-a-single-subnet.20204/
> I'll disagree with the claims it is not valid.  I shall however support
> the claims that it is non-standard, and non-trivial to understand just
> what it is that occurs in *BSD when you do this.  I have seen this
> "claimed to be invalid" coniguration in use several times over the
> past 30 years.
>
> Where people seem to get this "invalid" from is expecting the traffic
> to be bound to an IP to go both in and OUT that interface is what is
> not invalid, but a wrong assertion.  Traffic WELL come in that interface,
> as that is how ethernet macs, arp's an IP work.  However it WELL go
> out the interface that is selected by the routing table.  If you
> can seperate in your mind that this is how IN and OUT interfaces
> are decided the rest becomes simply mechanical.
>
> Simple typical *BSD installs end up with all traffic going out just
> one of the interfaces, but I can write route rules that change that
> artifact.  And this is where the usage of this odd configuration
> sometimes comes about.
>
> With modern implimentations of *BSD that now have multiple fib's,
> and things like netgraph, and ipfw one can get very creative in
> what actually happens.  And none of it is invalid, just often
> miss understood.  I can actually casue that traffic bound to
> a specific IP to go in and out that specific interface.  Ipfw's
> ability to cause a packet to use an alternate fib is how.
>
> ipfw add allow ip from ${ip_of_nicX} to any setfib ${fib_for_nicX}

I don't know much about the network stack in FreeBSD but I would assume 
that I should be able to configure specific traffic (based on the 
destination subnet, so nothing fancy) to go out of a specific interface. 
Not only I wasn't able to do that, I was told my approach was wrong. So 
I think I agree with you.
GregJ




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?f619ee3a-8af0-9aaa-b377-5dad83d3d70a>