Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 19:05:16 -0200 From: =?windows-1252?Q?=22Dante_F=2E_B=2E_Col=F2=22?= <dante01010@gmail.com> To: Jon Radel <jon@radel.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Static routing Message-ID: <54627A0C.6060701@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <54626FCB.5080904@radel.com> References: <545BE713.9090705@gmail.com> <20141109203840.2949195f@morena.maps.net> <54626BDD.3070408@gmail.com> <54626FCB.5080904@radel.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Sorry, i forgot to mention ,the Cisco router has the ip 189.92.72.9/255.255.255.248, there is no bridgie configured on the Linux (Debian 5 and 6 kernel 2.6) machine ,i just setup these static routes to do that but i really don't know how the Linux TCP stack handle this, anyway thanks for your reply, i'm gonna try the bridge on freebsd and openbsd. Regards Dante On 11/11/14 6:21 PM, Jon Radel wrote: > On 11/11/14, 3:04 PM, "Dante F. B. Colò" wrote: >> Hi Martin >> >> Thank you for your response. I mean the same subnet on both >> interfaces , i was just trying to setup static route for destinies >> *189.92.72.11* and *189.92.72.12* through the *em1* omitting the >> gateway, that's what we do on Linux ( eg route add -host >> *189.92.72.11 *dev ethx) but without success here. >> >> >> >> +-------+ >> | Cisco | >> +-----+-+ >> |if: 189.92.72.0/29 >> | >> |em0: 189.92.72.10/255.255.255.248 >> +-+-------+ >> | FreeBSD | >> +-+-------+ >> |em1: 189.92.72.11/255.255.255.248 >> >> | >> | >> +-----+--+ >> | Switch | +-----------------+ >> +--------+ | MAIL | >> |---------------+-----------------+ >> bnx0: 189.72.92.12/255.255.255.248 >> > As has been pointed out to you repeatedly both on the FreeBSD and > OpenBSD mailing lists, TCP/IP routing doesn't work like that. Judging > from your diagram, the Cisco thinks 189.92.72.0-189.92.72.7 are > available on its interface; so how does it talk to 189.92.72.10? The > FreeBSD box thinks that addresses 189.92.72.8-189.92.72.15 are on > interface em0. It thinks the same addresses are on interface em1. > If this is the case, you can not route between them, because they are > the same network. > > I have no idea what you're doing on the Linux box, but it's not layer > 3 routing using that topology. Are you sure you are not bridging on > the Linux box? > > --Jon Radel > jon@radel.com >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?54627A0C.6060701>