Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2000 22:09:39 +0930 (CST) From: Trevor Nichols <data@sb101.org> To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: routing problems locally Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0010242132570.63445-100000@ocdi.sb101.org> In-Reply-To: <20001022181123.C75251@149.211.6.64.reflexcom.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Thanks for your help. I downed all the aliases and deleted all the routes that were there and then brought all of them back up (without explicitly setting up the broadcast) and they now work. I'm not sure who put them in initially but they had broadcast 64...255 in there. About putting the addresses on lo0, I've seen it done on a shell elsewhere, twas a 3.4/5 box - the aliases were on lo0 instead of ed0 where the primary address was. It all worked though - thats why I thought I might need to put it there. -Trev On Sun, 22 Oct 2000, Crist J . Clark wrote: > 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<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> 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 <full-duplex> 100baseTX > > <half-duplex> 100baseTX 10baseT/UTP <full-duplex> 10baseT/UTP 10baseT/UTP > > <half-duplex> > > > > 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0010242132570.63445-100000>