Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 09:45:48 -0500 (EST) From: Barrett Richardson <barrett@aye.net> To: John Ioannidis <ji@research.att.com> Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Help, I'm stuck! Weird network/routing question. Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.01.10001070931290.27806-100000@phoenix.aye.net> In-Reply-To: <200001062323.SAA29559@bual.research.att.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 6 Jan 2000, John Ioannidis wrote: > Here is the setup: > > Hosts alice and bob, running 3.4-STABLE, xl interfaces. > > on alice: > # ifconfig xl1 10.1.1.1 up netmask 255.255.255.255 <snip> > # ifconfig xl1 10.1.1.2 up netmask 255.255.255.255 > <snip> > > So, what's the right way to do this? (No, I can't have a shorter > subnet mask and put both interfaces on the same subnet! Needless to > say, what I've described is the simplified problem). There has to be > a way to tell the routing code "this address may not look like it's on > any of your subnets, but the way to reach it is to ARP for it through > interface xl1". There was definitely a way of doing this back in the > SunOS 4 (and before) days. > > Help? You could try publishing an arp entry for 10.1.1.2 on 10.1.1.1 (and vice versa on 10.1.1.1) using the MAC addresses physically associated with the respective IPs of course. The boxen may consider the arp entries of no consequence being that neither considers the other host to be on an attached subnet. As an alternative you could place the IPs on the loopback interfaces as aliases using the ethernet addresses as gateways to these IPs. - Barrett To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" 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.4.01.10001070931290.27806-100000>