Date: Sat, 20 Sep 1997 13:47:31 -0400 (EDT) From: Yonny Cardenas <yonny@ingenieria.ingsala.unal.edu.co> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: RIPv2, gated, and routed (fwd) Message-ID: <Pine.SOL.3.91.970920134640.24202A-100000@ingenieria.ingsala.unal.edu.co>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 16:27:32 -0600
From: Vernon Schryver <vjs@mica.denver.sgi.com>
To: Gated-people@gated.merit.edu
Subject: RIPv2, gated, and routed
} > Add interface ppp0 200.20.30.1 --> 9.30.20.200/32 <PT-TO-PT> <NO_SOLICIT | NO_RDISC_ADV>
}
}
}If this RouteD - you have the wrong list.
Agreed. Since the topic has not gone away, and some incorrect
statements have been made, I'll answer.
}If this RouteD - you have the wrong list. Since it is ICMP router
}discovery - I suspect you have Vernon Schryver's updated version.
It looks likely.
} > Why 9.30.20.200/32 ?. It=B4s 200.20.30.9.=20
}
} I was going to tell you that not only do you have the wrong list
} but you also are using an address in IBM's class A block. However,
} this is obviously a case of a missing htonl() or ntohl() invocation
} on an Intel processor (which stores fullwords and halfwords with the
} least significant byte in lowest addressable byte).
People outside SGI found a bunch of htonl()/ntohl() bugs (I think) last
year. The most current source is in ftp.sgi.com:sgi/src/routed.tar.Z
] >the ppp interface supports multicast:
]
] >ppp0: flags=3D8051<UP,POINTOPOINT,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
] >(on my system)
As long as your PPP interface just stuffs multicast packets into the
PPP pipe, and your kernel does the right things with multicast packets
that come out of the PPP pipe, the right things should happen.
However, since PPP is a point-to-pint interface (as indicated by common
sense and IFF_POINTOPOINT bit in your struct if_net as shown by your
system), it is just as well for a RIPv2 implementation to send RIPv2
using unicast addresses.
] Is OK, I am usig FreeBSD 2.2.1 and gated 3.5Beta3.
I do not know how recent that is.
] >Try gated; it can support RIPv2 better.
I beg to differ. From what I saw of both 3.5 and 3.6, RIPv2 is not the
favorite protocol of `gated`. When last I ported 3.5, some of the
gated RIPv2 bugs were still there, a year or more after I reported
them, and some of the implementation holes still existed (e.g. support
for RIPv2 authentication).
] >it looks to me that routed's support of RIP2 is broken.
] >I can be wrong. Which OS version you are using? what is your
] >network configuration? =20
RIPv2 in `routed` works fine on a bunch of systems in the internal
Silicon Graphics network, including over PPP links. There is a total
of about 10,000 systems on 1,500 IP networks using the 100s of class-Cs
and several class-Bs SGI has been allocated over the years. A few 100
systems are using RIPv2. OSPF and IGRP are also in use. The PPP code
invovled is almost but not entirely the standard IRIX code (i.e. mine).
] I have two box how routers, one run gated (A) and other run routed (B),
] conected with link ethernet, the router (A) anounnce OK to
] other neighbor EGP, all its paths.
]
] ------ EGP -------9 RIP 1-------- RIP
] | |----... --------| A |**************| B |--------
] ------ ------- --------
] 200.20.30
] >> Need configuration especial in file /etc/gateways ? How ?
]
] >you need it for routed; try gated, and I have seen you can write
] >gated.conf ;-)
Nonsense! In general, you do not need /etc/gateways either with the
4.*BSD code based on Sam Leffler's primordial implementation nor with
my code. In the old version of `routed`, /etc/gateways was needed only
for some odd cases, such as telling `routed` to ignore an interface.
In the FreeBSD version, you can tell `routed` to ignore an interface on
the command line. Please read the fine (or perhaps not so fine) man
page.
In this case, I probably would run `gated` on system "A", doing EGP on
the link to the left system "A" and RIPv2 on the PPP link. I would run
either `gated` or `routed`, whichever I was comfortable with, on system "B".
Depending on what is to the right of the PPP link, it might be possible
to use static default routes on systems to the right, not use any
routig protocol on the PPP link, and use a suitable gated.conf file to
cause `gated` to advertise the network(s) on the right into EGP on the left.
Vernon Schryver, vjs@sgi.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.SOL.3.91.970920134640.24202A-100000>