From owner-freebsd-net Thu Jun 6 7:53:55 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from ShadoW.OTEL.net (JuDiCaToR.OTEL.net [212.36.9.113]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82FCF37B401 for ; Thu, 6 Jun 2002 07:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ikostov (helo=localhost) by ShadoW.OTEL.net with local-esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17Fydl-0008K4-00; Thu, 06 Jun 2002 17:53:29 +0300 Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:53:29 +0300 (EEST) From: Iasen Kostov To: Marko Zec Cc: Kelly Yancey , Subject: Re: host routes for interface addresses In-Reply-To: <3CFF6761.64ACBAE9@tel.fer.hr> Message-ID: <20020606173742.Q30573-100000@shadowhand.OTEL.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Marko Zec wrote: > Iasen Kostov wrote: > > > > You might want to take a look at Marko Zec's VIPA patches that he posted to > > > -net a few days ago. You should be able to find it in the mailing list > > > archives under the subject "Patch for review: source VIPA". > > > > > It will work only if I can arpresolv VIPA and ofcourse resolve it to the > > right iface lladdr. In other hand we could set same lladdr on all ethernet > > ifaces. > > The VIPA interface is an internal loopback, aka "virtual", as its name implies. > Therefore it doesn't have an underlying link layer, so you can't do ARP on VIPA. > The idea is to dynamically advertise this internal address to the outer world, so > that in case one phy ifc would go down, the VIPA could still remain reachable via > an alternative path/interface. To accomplish this goal you need to run a routing > protocol - in my setup the plain old RIP 1 / routed combination worked just fine, > although this was just an example... > > Marko > That means that VIPA does not work in my case. This is what I found in the kernel: /*- * Don't add host routes for interface addresses of * 0.0.0.0 --> 0.255.255.255 netmask 255.0.0.0. This makes it * possible to assign several such address pairs with consistent * results (no host route) and is required by BOOTP. * * XXX: This is ugly ! There should be a way for the caller to * say that they don't want a host route. */ I don't need host route too not just BOOTP :) and yes there should be a way to miss host route addition. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message