Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 13:42:32 +0200 From: Lionel Fourquaux <lionel.fourquaux@normalesup.org> To: David Scheidt <dscheidt@panix.com> Cc: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: routing to a directly attached subnet without an address in this subnet Message-ID: <20110425114232.GA4647@phare.normalesup.org> In-Reply-To: <9DC435EF-B1BA-405D-9023-9724F65E77E3@panix.com> References: <20110424202954.GA16373@phare.normalesup.org> <9DC435EF-B1BA-405D-9023-9724F65E77E3@panix.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 08:50:53PM -0400, David Scheidt wrote: >On Apr 24, 2011, at 4:29 PM, Lionel Fourquaux wrote: >> em0 has addresses fe80::1234:56ff:fe78:9abc and 2001:db8::1 >> em1 has address fe80::1234:56ff:fe78:9abd >> Network 2001:db8::/64 is directly attached to em0, and network 2001:db8:0:1::/64 is directly attached to em1. The default route points to em0. I would like to route packets addressed to 2001:db8:0:1::/64 to interface em1, without allocating an address in 2001:db8:0:1::/64 for em1. (Or to understand why this would be impossible). >> > >Why do you want to do this? Because I think it would look better that way. > How do you expect the hosts on the attached networks to get packets to you? They are already using fe80::1234:56ff:fe78:9abd as default gateway, so this is not a problem.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110425114232.GA4647>