Date: Sun, 28 Apr 1996 09:39:13 -0400 From: Chris Peltier <CPELTIER@iectech.com> To: "'fyeung@fyeung5.netific.com'" <fyeung@fyeung5.netific.com> Cc: "'questions@FreeBSD.org'" <questions@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: Private address Forwarding by BSD Message-ID: <96Apr28.094633edt.6151@netgate.iectech.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Francais said: >Chris, > > This explains it. Well, bring up routed -s and see what happens > to netstat -r. > > It will forward/route if you turn routed -s on. > > Make sure that you don't propagate your route to the world > . > > Francis >> >>Francis, >> >> No routing deamons are running on the FreeBSD routers or any >> other routers in our private network. The closest RIP/BGP provider is two hops away. >> Everything is defined as static routes on our nets. To answer your question: routedflags >> = NO in sysconfig. > > >> -- Chris Peltier >> Francis, That did the trick. I still do not understand why some some routes were available and others were not without running any routing daemons. Valid static routes existed to all networks and of course IP_FORWARDING = 1/GATEWAY=1 in the kernel configuration. It would help me to understand why I need to run gated even though I have static routes. I thought the IP layer forwarded based on kernel routing tables that gated or routed can manipulate. By placing static routes in the routing table I am doing the same thing correct ? The only time I should need a routing daemon is when my network is multi-homed and there are two or more paths to the same place (or I want my routes automatically). By making the routing explicit through static routes I would be safer because routers outside of my control cannot alter or make suggestions to my routing tables. --- Thanks for the help, Chris Peltier
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?96Apr28.094633edt.6151>