Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 11:02:48 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Z=F6ld?= <zgabe84@gmail.com> To: julian@elischer.org, Giuliano Gavazzi <dev+lists@humph.com> Cc: freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD 7.1 IPv6 multihoming problem Message-ID: <75e73d840904020202q28db47e6u663a9e0bfb32a6e@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54A338F9-D66C-4406-804C-7443798931C8@humph.com> References: <22800054.post@talk.nabble.com> <49D27F5C.7030506@elischer.org> <54A338F9-D66C-4406-804C-7443798931C8@humph.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--001636c597b8424a4504668eb268 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi guys! I attached my testbed! It's a small testbed, I don't need to look onto the internet. The wlan gets an address from 2001:738:2001:2082::/64 Th= e phone gets an address from 2001:738:2001:20a9::/64 The server in the 2001:738:2001:2081:/64 network. I would like to make some SCTP failover measurement between the laptop and SCTP server. I need a solution where the packets go via the proper interfaces. (ipfw fwd doesn't work) Static routes don't operate, because the packets always out on the default gateway. I work on my thesis and I haven't got too much time. Can you explain an exact solution? Regards G=E1bor Z=F6ld 2009/4/1 Giuliano Gavazzi <dev+lists@humph.com <dev%2Blists@humph.com>> > Sorry Julian, I wrongly sent my reply to you! > > On T 31 Mar, 2009, at 22:38 , Julian Elischer wrote: > > zgabe wrote: >> >>> Hi All, I am using laptop, FreeBSD 7.1 connecting to two ISPs (wlan and >>> ppp) and I >>> have IPv6 addresses. 'netstat -rn' says there is only one default gatew= ay >>> (for example wlan's default gateway). My problem is the following: If I >>> ping the ppp tunnel from an other computer, my laptop recieves the >>> ICMP6 echo request over the ppp tunnel, but it answers over the wlan >>> interface. I read some similar posts (only ipv4) about forwarding with >>> IPFW, >>> but I was unable to solve my problem until now. >>> >> >> [...] > >> >> the theory with multihoming is that unless you are the holder of a class= -C >> (/24) you basically have to do it using NAT. >> You have to make some subset of your traffic use one NAT while the >> remainder uses another (or is untranslated). >> Unfortunately we don't have NAT for IPV6. I don't know how that >> gets solved.. >> > > I am not sure I understand how NAT would solve the routing problem. Doesn= 't > a packet have the next hop set according to the destination, that is > anything not for a locally attached network will go to the default router= ? > Zgabe is correct in trying to use fwd, I use that to route packets > according to the source. I use this method, in ipv4, although perhaps too > intrusively as I also fwd packets that should go to the default route (wh= ich > could be instead just accept'ed), but this is another topic. > > For zgabe problem, aren't packets coming from the pppaddress going throug= h > the ppp interface. So why don't you try to select them by the interface (= and > the direction they go through it, as in out xmit ppp) rather than by > protocol? Not sure how will you enter an ipv6 address as a forwarding one= , > it does not work on my setup (macos). > > g > --001636c597b8424a4504668eb268--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?75e73d840904020202q28db47e6u663a9e0bfb32a6e>