Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2021 16:34:32 +0000 (UTC) From: "Bjoern A. Zeeb" <bz@freebsd.org> To: Kurt Jaeger <pi@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: why multi-hop icmp redirects to 0.0.0.0 on 13.0 ? Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.2112041633090.68830@ai.fobar.qr> In-Reply-To: <YauV138P1xyB53Ja@fc.opsec.eu> References: <Yast8d1dRd7ZFWr3@fc.opsec.eu> <alpine.BSF.2.00.2112041609520.68830@ai.fobar.qr> <YauV138P1xyB53Ja@fc.opsec.eu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 4 Dec 2021, Kurt Jaeger wrote: > Hi! > >>> 10:20:16.889185 IP x.x.x..1 > y.y.y.1: ICMP redirect z.z.z.z to host 0.0.0.0, length 48 >> >> whoops. > >>> This has been stopped by net.inet.ip.redirect=0 on rtr1, but my question is: >>> >>> Why is rtr1 sending those multi-hop icmp redirects at all ? >> >> Could you elaborate on: > >> (a) Do rtr1 or rtr2 have a default route or are they carrying a full DFZ >> without default route? > > rtr1 runs frr, has full route, either with or without default route. If that makes no difference then something else is wrong. > rtr2 has only static routes, default points to rtr1. > >> Assumption: if both rtr2 and rtr1 are running 13 and not 12, rtr2 >> does have a default route and rtr1 has a full DFZ only and no >> default route? > > Seeo above. > >> (b) At the time this happens does rtr1 have a route to z.z.z.z ? >> route -4 get z.z.z.z > > Yes. And that is not pointing back to the interface rtr2 is on but out on an interface towards inet? /bz -- Bjoern A. Zeeb r15:7
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.2112041633090.68830>