Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:10:25 +0000
From:      "Eggert, Lars" <lars@netapp.com>
To:        Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org>
Cc:        "<freebsd-net@freebsd.org>" <freebsd-net@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: Problems with two interfaces on the same subnet?
Message-ID:  <D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F70A47C@SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com>
In-Reply-To: <kfdvck$6ak$1@ger.gmane.org>
References:  <kfduar$qrh$1@ger.gmane.org> <D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F70995D@SACEXCMBX01-PRD.hq.netapp.com> <kfdvck$6ak$1@ger.gmane.org>

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

On Feb 12, 2013, at 9:50, Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> wrote:
>> You can make this work with ipfw rules (and I guess also setfib, althoug=
h I have not tried that.)
>=20
> The concept of FIBs looks clean and applicable but setfib works on newly
> started process, and I would need to do something like apply it to
> packets coming from an interface.

Assuming your default route is via igb2, you can do something like this:

ipfw add fwd <router upstream of igb3> ip4 from <local address of igb3> to =
not <subnet of igb2> out

(From memory, no guarantees.)

Lars=



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D4D47BCFFE5A004F95D707546AC0D7E91F70A47C>