Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 9 May 2007 06:47:30 -0300
From:      AT Matik <asstec@matik.com.br>
To:        freebsd-ipfw@freebsd.org
Cc:        Kirk Davis <Kirk.Davis@epsb.ca>, Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org>
Subject:   Re: Policy Routing natd+ipfw
Message-ID:  <200705090647.31588.asstec@matik.com.br>
In-Reply-To: <DB9A31C316524A4A83E54A2C0D20655702216E5A@Exchange24.EDU.epsb.ca>
References:  <33910a2c0705041812s2aaf0b62t785e16abc0decee6@mail.gmail.com> <463E377E.2000300@elischer.org> <DB9A31C316524A4A83E54A2C0D20655702216E5A@Exchange24.EDU.epsb.ca>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Monday 07 May 2007 19:05:31 Kirk Davis wrote:
> Julian Elischer wrote:
> > in -current you can implement a routing table via FWD and tables.
> > in  6.x you need to specify the next hop. and an more explicit rule.
>
>    Is there any information floating around on how to do this in current
> using the FWD rules and tables? Any pointer on where to look.
>
>    Right now I am using fwd rules on our BGP router (Quagga & FreeBSD
> 6.2) to force one of our subnets out a particular interface and avoid
> the routing table but I would prefer to do it more like a dual routing
> table where I can make more routing decisions than just forcing all
> packets from that subnet out the interface.  I could test it on one of
> our current boxes.
>

I do not know enough about quagga but if you really run BGP and quagga does=
=20
what BGP is supposed to do I wuold say you shoudl use policy route-map=20
filters for that purpose

Jo=E3o







A mensagem foi scaneada pelo sistema de e-mail e pode ser considerada segura.
Service fornecido pelo Datacenter Matik  https://datacenter.matik.com.br



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200705090647.31588.asstec>