Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2002 13:31:25 +0100 (CET) From: Helge Oldach <freebsd-stable-21nov02@oldach.net> To: guido@gvr.org (Guido van Rooij) Cc: freebsd-stable-21nov02@oldach.net, hausen@punkt.de, archie@dellroad.org, dkelly@HiWAAY.net, sullrich@CRE8.COM, greg.panula@dolaninformation.com, FreeBSD-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IPsec/gif VPN tunnel packets on wrong NIC in ipfw? SOLUTION AND QUESTIONS Message-ID: <200211211231.gALCVP9e082159@sep.oldach.net> In-Reply-To: <20021121090811.GB96801@gvr.gvr.org> from Guido van Rooij at "Nov 21, 2002 10: 8:11 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Guido van Rooij: > On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 09:37:04AM +0100, Helge Oldach wrote: > > The core problem is that we have a single routing table only, and hence > > we have a mix of internal and public routes. Consequently we will see > > both internal and external packets on interfaces. Therefore I don't see > > the need for an extra interface. I regard the gif set-up as confusion > > already, because this interface isn't used at all. > It is used. Why are the interface counters always zero? > It seems you think this is a routing issue, No, I don't think so. But having dual routing tables (one for the inside, and one for the outside) would be an approach to eliminate the problem. Helge To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200211211231.gALCVP9e082159>