From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Jun 3 20:21:24 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C497D16A41C; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 20:21:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from michael@gargantuan.com) Received: from phoenix.gargantuan.com (srv01.lak.lwxdatacom.net [24.73.171.238]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4981F43D48; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 20:21:24 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from michael@gargantuan.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.gargantuan.com [127.0.0.1]) by spamassassin-injector (Postfix) with SMTP id DF7CB212; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 16:21:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by phoenix.gargantuan.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id D72031F4; Fri, 3 Jun 2005 16:21:09 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2005 16:21:09 -0400 From: "Michael W. Oliver" To: Ruslan Ermilov Message-ID: <20050603202109.GA22098@gargantuan.com> Mail-Followup-To: Ruslan Ermilov , freebsd-net@freebsd.org References: <20050603181636.GA54906@gicco.homeip.net> <20050603191351.GA54164@ip.net.ua> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050603191351.GA54164@ip.net.ua> X-WWW-URL: http://michael.gargantuan.com X-GPG-PGP-Public-Key: http://michael.gargantuan.com/gnupg/pubkey.asc X-GPG-PGP-Fingerprint: 2694 0179 AE3F BFAE 0916 0BF5 B16B FBAB C5FA A3C9 X-Home-Phone: +1-863-816-8091 X-Mobile-Phone: +1-863-738-2334 X-Mailing-Address0: 8008 Apache Lane X-Mailing-Address1: Lakeland, FL X-Mailing-Address2: 33810-2172 X-Mailing-Address3: United States of America X-Guide-Questions: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html X-Guide-Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Spam-DCC: dcc.uncw.edu: phoenix.gargantuan.com 1201; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on phoenix.gargantuan.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.7 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00, USER_IN_WHITELIST autolearn=ham version=3.0.3 X-Spam-Pyzor: Reported 0 times. Cc: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: route metric X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 20:21:25 -0000 --MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2005-06-03T22:13:51+0300, Ruslan Ermilov wrote: > On Fri, Jun 03, 2005 at 08:16:36PM +0200, Hanspeter Roth wrote: >> Hello, >> I thought it is possible to have routes to the same destination but >> with a different metric. But I can't find how to set the metric in >> the route manpage. >> How is a metric for a route set? > We don't support that at the moment. yeah, ru is right, unfortunately. may i ask what you are trying to accomplish? if you have a dynamic routing protocol that you can tap into, zebra can manage same-prefix routes of multiple administrative distances (not same as metric) and keep the best route in the RIB for you at all times. there used to be patches floating around for 4.x that would allow a kind of metric, but IIRC you couldn't use two (or more) same-metric routes for per-packet balancing, rather the metric would be degraded for each packet that was forwarded to a particular destination (it's been a while since I looked, so I may be all wet on this). it would be nice to have a feature like this, where you could have multiple same-prefix, same-metric routes in a FIB, and the packets would be balanced to the next hop, either on a per-flow or per-packet basis. i have seen a lot of answers to this request over the years along the lines of ``FreeBSD isn't a router'', which is sad since it does perform the task of packet routing exceedingly well, and a heck of a lot cheaper than vendor C. all of the usual reasons that OSS is better apply here, too. who wouldn't like SSH on all of their routers without paying $$$ for a crypto image?!? mind you, i am not complaining here, just making an observation. if this drives someone to prove me wrong, (many others and) i would be all the happier! --=20 Mike Oliver [see complete headers for contact information] --MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFCoLu1sWv7q8X6o8kRAmouAJ9VCml3c+1PtsxsiPuO9zZBceAfBACfTLp+ BiMUaFc6slTFYseHkPr1/xE= =JTHY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --MGYHOYXEY6WxJCY8--