From owner-freebsd-questions Sun Oct 22 18:16:47 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mailhost01.reflexnet.net (mailhost01.reflexnet.net [64.6.192.82]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B118B37B479 for ; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:16:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com ([64.6.211.149]) by mailhost01.reflexnet.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:10:07 -0700 Received: (from cjc@localhost) by 149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id e9N1BNf83735; Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:11:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from cjc) Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 18:11:23 -0700 From: "Crist J . Clark" To: Trevor Nichols Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: routing problems locally Message-ID: <20001022181123.C75251@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com> Reply-To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: ; from data@sb101.org on Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 09:45:34AM +0930 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, Oct 23, 2000 at 09:45:34AM +0930, Trevor Nichols wrote: > Hi, > > I don't know what causes it but the routing that's automatically generated > for rl0 IP addresses is bad causing the machine to not be able to use any > of the local addresses. > > [20:11:29 (root@cjhost):~]# netstat -rn > Routing tables > > Internet: > Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif > Expire > default 209.61.157.193 UGSc 71 3488 rl0 > 64.39.10.136 64.39.10.136 UH 0 0 rl0 => > 64.39.10.136/32 link#1 UC 0 0 rl0 > 64.39.10.137 64.39.10.137 UH 0 0 rl0 => > 64.39.10.137/32 link#1 UC 0 0 rl0 > 64.39.10.138 64.39.10.138 UH 0 0 rl0 => > 64.39.10.138/32 link#1 UC 0 0 rl0 > 64.39.10.139 0:e0:7d:8c:a1:a UHLW 2 25 lo0 => > 64.39.10.139/32 link#1 UC 0 0 rl0 > 64.39.10.140 64.39.10.140 UH 0 0 rl0 => > 64.39.10.140/32 link#1 UC 0 0 rl0 > 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 8 74045 lo0 > > You'll notice the gateway for 64.39.10.136 is 64.39.10.136, same with all > except .139. I did 'route delete -host 64.39.10.139' and it recreated it > as shown above. > > I can't ping .136 or anything but I can now ping .139. > > The machine is a FreeBSD 3.4 machine. We are planning to upgrade soon. > > [20:17:06 (root@cjhost):~]# ifconfig -a > rl0: flags=8843 mtu 1500 > inet 209.61.157.228 netmask 0xffffffc0 broadcast 209.61.157.255 > inet 64.39.10.136 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 64.39.10.255 > inet 64.39.10.137 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 64.39.10.255 > inet 64.39.10.138 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 64.39.10.255 > inet 64.39.10.139 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 64.39.10.255 > inet 64.39.10.140 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 64.39.10.255 > ether 00:e0:7d:8c:a1:0a > media: autoselect > supported media: autoselect 100baseTX 100baseTX > 100baseTX 10baseT/UTP 10baseT/UTP 10baseT/UTP > > > Should we have these IP addresses on lo0 instead of rl0? > > Any suggestions much appreciated (because I don't want to have to do route > delete -host IP all the time :) How are these addresses being asigned? It should be, ifconfig_rl0_alias0="inet 64.39.10.136 netmask 0xffffffff" ifconfig_rl0_alias1="inet 64.39.10.137 netmask 0xffffffff" ifconfig_rl0_alias2="inet 64.39.10.138 netmask 0xffffffff" ... Like so. But something is definately up since the broadcast address for these is wrong (really wrong) besides your routing problem. As to your question about lo0, if these addresses are for "interal use only," that is, the host only uses them to talk to itself (but I don't understand why someone would do that), then that _may_ work. But if the routing for these are somehow munged, the route for those may be too. -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@alum.mit.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message