Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 18 Jul 2006 10:55:36 -0400 (EDT)
From:      matt@gsicomp.on.ca
To:        "David Gilbert" <dgilbert@dclg.ca>
Cc:        freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: On the use of Tun interfaces.
Message-ID:  <3902.192.168.0.1.1153234536.squirrel@webmail.gsicomp.on.ca>
In-Reply-To: <17596.26134.831813.158138@canoe.dclg.ca>
References:  <17596.26134.831813.158138@canoe.dclg.ca>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The man pages of if_tun are out-of-date in some respects, but with
> comments from the group and reading the sources of ppp, I have worked
> around most of the problems I've found.  However, I'm stuck with one
> quandry.  My tunnel setup process produces the following:
>
> tun0: flags=8051<UP,POINTOPOINT,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
>         inet6 fe80::214:22ff:fede:f175%tun0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x5
>         inet 192.168.12.2 --> 192.168.22.1 netmask 0xffffffff
>         Opened by PID 86506
>
> but then I ask:
>
> [3:14:314]dgilbert@canoe:~/devel/failsafe> route get 192.168.22.1
>    route to: 192.168.22.1
> destination: default
>        mask: default
>     gateway: strike1
>   interface: bge0
>
> and indeed:
>
> [3:15:315]dgilbert@canoe:~/devel/failsafe> netstat -rn
> Routing tables
>
> Internet:
> Destination        Gateway            Flags    Refs      Use  Netif Expire
> default            xx.yy.zz.33        UGS         0  1629642   bge0
> xx.yy.zz.32/27     link#1             UC          0        0   bge0
> xx.yy.zz.33        00:80:c8:c9:22:31  UHLW        2       16   bge0   1046
> 127.0.0.1          127.0.0.1          UH          0  4111852    lo0
> 192.168.22.1       192.168.12.2       UH          0        0   tun0
>
> shouldn't the last route there be active?  Any clues here?

Have you set net.inet.ip.forwarding=1 via sysctl?

--
Matt Emmerton




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3902.192.168.0.1.1153234536.squirrel>