Date: Wed, 9 May 2007 06:47:30 -0300 From: AT Matik <asstec@matik.com.br> To: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Cc: Kirk Davis <Kirk.Davis@epsb.ca>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Subject: Re: Policy Routing natd+ipfw Message-ID: <200705090647.31588.asstec@matik.com.br> In-Reply-To: <DB9A31C316524A4A83E54A2C0D20655702216E5A@Exchange24.EDU.epsb.ca> References: <33910a2c0705041812s2aaf0b62t785e16abc0decee6@mail.gmail.com> <463E377E.2000300@elischer.org> <DB9A31C316524A4A83E54A2C0D20655702216E5A@Exchange24.EDU.epsb.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 07 May 2007 19:05:31 Kirk Davis wrote: > Julian Elischer wrote: > > in -current you can implement a routing table via FWD and tables. > > in 6.x you need to specify the next hop. and an more explicit rule. > > Is there any information floating around on how to do this in current > using the FWD rules and tables? Any pointer on where to look. > > Right now I am using fwd rules on our BGP router (Quagga & FreeBSD > 6.2) to force one of our subnets out a particular interface and avoid > the routing table but I would prefer to do it more like a dual routing > table where I can make more routing decisions than just forcing all > packets from that subnet out the interface. I could test it on one of > our current boxes. > I do not know enough about quagga but if you really run BGP and quagga does= =20 what BGP is supposed to do I wuold say you shoudl use policy route-map=20 filters for that purpose Jo=E3o A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura. Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik https://datacenter.matik.com.br
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200705090647.31588.asstec>