Date: Tue, 5 May 1998 15:00:21 -0500 From: Richard Wackerbarth <rkw@dataplex.net> To: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Have I left something out? Message-ID: <l03130307b1751c02f492@[208.2.87.7]>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
I set up a test network and it did not behave as I had hoped/expected. I wanted to have redundant connections so that if one goes down, another can be used. Consider the simple case of a loop. For discussion, we will have 6 nets. 10.0.1.0/24, 10.0.2.0/24, ..., 10.0.6.0/24. We will join them with routers 10.0.1.1 == 10.0.2.1 10.0.2.2 == 10.0.3.2 ... 10.0.5.5 == 10.0.6.5 and to close the loop 10.0.6.6 == 10.0.1.6 Now we bring them all up and let them exchange routing info. All is well. A packet from net 1 ==> net 3 goes via net 2. A packet from net 1 ==> net 5 goes via net 6. Now we break the loop by declaring net 6 (or one of the router interfaces thereon) down. The routes reconfigure and the packet to net 5 now takes the longer (but still available) route via nets 2,3,4. However, and this is my problem, if I declared the 10.0.1.6 interface down, I cannot reach the machine. Host 10.0.1.1 INSISTS that the packet go out the net 1 interface and cannot reach 10.0.1.6. It never finds the "backdoor", 10.0.6.6. Any suggestions? Richard Wackerbarth To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?l03130307b1751c02f492>