From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 11 21:05:12 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9D5B8143 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:05:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qg0-x236.google.com (mail-qg0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::236]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G2" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 51F3DCAA for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:05:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-qg0-f54.google.com with SMTP id q108so7905430qgd.13 for ; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:05:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=cTOuVxPIVhpUSDwKM4JCySg7WvECTdsddEL7h2/1eUE=; b=s7Q1sSwvvmLROLmqy8oXr+HnSCAu+DCtKqKyHSZgqeVsYK+09SdHxPD/7NbqagqKhK EuzvOH+ED6RGOEegZ9s//9nwSqNeMwMOnhAmimXTh0Wh9BUSvvQCEiKnEmWvCk4tmZr0 JQr7xloMmajyw9nmkzjVcFVP2e05C6l7jgyxXIcQ8w8MrYi4xk0WadXiuZf43PVB4gG5 I0X43PDcUIWiyFEggD3wgHvTc6q5O84l0keWlAecrlRJGsDvrgySjOh0HIsBhtngjTOw CdHLUxgocCTKxlOymTCJtGGgA5PsWhqr8TSoIUJ2oaDlmdQYpEnOpr8PjxsWgdNH2pcs 5C2w== X-Received: by 10.224.11.137 with SMTP id t9mr53628479qat.10.1415739911450; Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:05:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from dante.portari.intra ([201.91.194.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id i1sm19272431qaz.28.2014.11.11.13.05.09 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 11 Nov 2014 13:05:10 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <54627A0C.6060701@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:05:16 -0200 From: =?windows-1252?Q?=22Dante_F=2E_B=2E_Col=F2=22?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jon Radel , freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Static routing References: <545BE713.9090705@gmail.com> <20141109203840.2949195f@morena.maps.net> <54626BDD.3070408@gmail.com> <54626FCB.5080904@radel.com> In-Reply-To: <54626FCB.5080904@radel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 21:05:12 -0000 Sorry, i forgot to mention ,the Cisco router has the ip 189.92.72.9/255.255.255.248, there is no bridgie configured on the Linux (Debian 5 and 6 kernel 2.6) machine ,i just setup these static routes to do that but i really don't know how the Linux TCP stack handle this, anyway thanks for your reply, i'm gonna try the bridge on freebsd and openbsd. Regards Dante On 11/11/14 6:21 PM, Jon Radel wrote: > On 11/11/14, 3:04 PM, "Dante F. B. Colò" wrote: >> Hi Martin >> >> Thank you for your response. I mean the same subnet on both >> interfaces , i was just trying to setup static route for destinies >> *189.92.72.11* and *189.92.72.12* through the *em1* omitting the >> gateway, that's what we do on Linux ( eg route add -host >> *189.92.72.11 *dev ethx) but without success here. >> >> >> >> +-------+ >> | Cisco | >> +-----+-+ >> |if: 189.92.72.0/29 >> | >> |em0: 189.92.72.10/255.255.255.248 >> +-+-------+ >> | FreeBSD | >> +-+-------+ >> |em1: 189.92.72.11/255.255.255.248 >> >> | >> | >> +-----+--+ >> | Switch | +-----------------+ >> +--------+ | MAIL | >> |---------------+-----------------+ >> bnx0: 189.72.92.12/255.255.255.248 >> > As has been pointed out to you repeatedly both on the FreeBSD and > OpenBSD mailing lists, TCP/IP routing doesn't work like that. Judging > from your diagram, the Cisco thinks 189.92.72.0-189.92.72.7 are > available on its interface; so how does it talk to 189.92.72.10? The > FreeBSD box thinks that addresses 189.92.72.8-189.92.72.15 are on > interface em0. It thinks the same addresses are on interface em1. > If this is the case, you can not route between them, because they are > the same network. > > I have no idea what you're doing on the Linux box, but it's not layer > 3 routing using that topology. Are you sure you are not bridging on > the Linux box? > > --Jon Radel > jon@radel.com >