Date: Mon, 5 Jul 1999 10:22:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Dan Busarow <dan@dpcsys.com> To: Roelof Osinga <roelof@eboa.com> Cc: questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IP alias routing problem Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990705101121.8091B-100000@java.dpcsys.com> In-Reply-To: <3780CC87.67CCF0D5@eboa.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Roelof Osinga wrote: > Dan Busarow wrote: > > I haven't been following this whole thread, maybe you could restate > > what it is you're trying to accomplish. > > OK. My host is connected to two ISP's at the same time: > > network_interfaces="ep0 ep1 lo0" > ifconfig_ep0="inet 10.0.0.55 netmask 255.255.255.0" > ifconfig_ep1="inet 212.187.0.39 netmask 255.255.248.0" > ifconfig_ep1_alias0="inet 194.134.130.170 194.134.128.1 netmask 255.255.252.0" > defaultrouter="212.187.0.1" > > The above is correct, as should be *and* working as advertised. Now, > my problem is that I need to contact some 194.134 hosts that lie just > outside the 255.255.252.0 mask and need to do so through the > 194.134.128.1 gateway. I.e. *not* using the default route. Add static routes to those hosts/nets in /etc/rc.conf This will setup two /24 routes, the classfull netmask is used if none is specified. static_routes="spec1 spec2" route_spec1="194.134.1.0 194.134.128.1" route_spec1="194.134.10.0 194.134.128.1" > > I'm not sure what I would expect ifconfig to do when you specify > > a destination address on a non PTP line but it obviously confuses > > the heck out of it. See what it did to your broadcast address > > If it can't be done as it oughta then it oughta be done as it can. Hm, > I guess it looses a bit in translation <g>. True enough, do whatever it takes to get things working. Don't think you need to break the rules in this case though. > Just going through the possibilities. There aren't that many. Added > porblem is of course that it doesn't like routing through aliassed IP > addresses. > > But haven't tried the 255.255.0.0 mask yet with this setup. Do know > that it failed miserably on the previous setup (linux box). Well, not > exactly miserably but strange sideeffects did occur. The only side effect I can imagine is that you either won't be able to reach, or will reach with suboptimal routing, the rest of the hosts in 194.134.0.0 that are not in your /22 or one of your exceptions. Dan -- Dan Busarow 949 443 4172 Dana Point Communications, Inc. dan@dpcsys.com Dana Point, California 83 09 EF 59 E0 11 89 B4 8D 09 DB FD E1 DD 0C 82 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" 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.3.96.990705101121.8091B-100000>