Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 09:44:28 -0700 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: nino@inode.at Cc: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org>, "Marinos J . Yannikos" <mjy@pobox.com>, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: routing bug(?) persists (PR 16318) Message-ID: <200006151644.JAA02187@mass.osd.bsdi.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 15 Jun 2000 18:40:21 %2B0200." <20000615184021.H24505@TK147108.telekabel.at>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2000 at 07:33:36AM -0700, Mike Smith wrote: > > [mjy] > > > ifconfig_vr0="195.58.183.77 netmask 255.255.255.248" > > > static_routes="0 1" > > > route_0="-net 195.58.161.96 -netmask 255.255.255.240 -iface vr0" > > > route_1="default 195.58.161.97" > > > > The above network configuration is incorrect - you need a gateway that is > > directly reachable. > > The gateway is physically connected to the same network, the physical network > contains 2 (or more) distinct subnets. Correct. You are not, however, logically connected to the network on which your gateway resides. > > If you want to use the above default route, you need > > to give your machine an address on the same network as your gateway, most > > trivially by aliasing it onto the vr0 interface. > > I don't see why that should be necessary - my ISP doesn't either, since he'd > have to part with another IP address. My ISP claims and I've verified that > the configuration above works trivially under Linux and Windows NT, and > as far as I can tell, the submitted patch does nothing more than to allow > the specified interface to be taken into consideration when "connectedness" > is determined (i.e. it allows the gateway to be in a different subnet as long > as it is physically connected). I would suggest you go find an introductory IP networking book, and get two copies (one for yourself, and one for your ISP). What you're trying to do is a fundamental violation of the way that IP routing works, and this is what the network stack is trying to tell you. The fundamental problem is that when you send a datagram to your gateway, you can't put a valid return address on it (because you don't have an appearance on its network). If you've put the interface's real address in the datagram, you'll never get a reply because your gateway has no idea how to route back to you. If you can't get an IP on your gateway's network, alias another address on your private network onto the gateway system's interface and use that as your default route. If your gateway is too lame to support multiple addresses on an interface, use another system that does have a real appearance on the gateway's network to route for you. And read that book - it'll save you a lot of agony in the future. -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200006151644.JAA02187>