Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001 00:05:39 -0600 (CST) From: Nick Rogness <nick@rogness.net> To: Wes Peters <wes@softweyr.com> Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG, Jeroen Ruigrok/Asmodai <asmodai@wxs.nl> Subject: Re: same interface Route Cache Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0103172322030.18063-100000@cody.jharris.com> In-Reply-To: <3AB44119.3666D825@softweyr.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 17 Mar 2001, Wes Peters wrote: > > > > > > > > > Packet 1 comes in through ISP #2 network. It comes into your > > > internal network to machine 1. Machine 1 replies to the > > > packet...but where does it go? It will exit through interface > > > to ISP #1 because of the default gateway. It came in ISP #2 and > > > left out ISP #1. There is your problem. > > > > There is no way to tell your packet to go back out to ISP #2. That is the > > point I'm trying to get across. Unless your running a routing > > daemon. But is that really practical with cable modems, dsl, etc?...I > > don't think so. > > Why would the physical media have anything to do with routing protocols? Just TRY to ask your cable or DSL provider to do BGP or any routing...it aint going to happen. Watch them laugh in your face. The point here is getting way out of hand. Of course a routing daemon would work. That has been said by myself throughout this thread. That's not the point. Sure you can run a routing daemon...it won't do any good if it is not recieving any routes from your upstreams because they won't peer with you because you only pay $40 a month for the service. Not everyone can afford a damn T1 to an ISP, get IP space and setup BGP. Those same people most often look for a UNIX box of some sort to do what they want. Yes, there is a time and place for policy routing. Any Network engineer that has been actually supporting large networks can tell you why you would use it, and there ARE very good reason to do it. The fact is, many FreeBSD machines are running this type of setup. Wouldn't it be nice to say "yeh we can do that"? Unfortunetly, that does not appear to be the case because adding flexibility seems to cause problems in the traditional ways of the BSD folk...which is understandable...because you would be breaking the rules. I understand. PS: This is not a hack for me, Wes, I suggested it after working with several people having this same problem. There is a workaround that is pretty ugly so I was looking for a cleaner solution...that's all! Thanks for the comments. Keep up the good work! Nick Rogness <nick@rogness.net> - Keep on routing in a Free World... "FreeBSD: The Power to Serve!" 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?Pine.BSF.4.21.0103172322030.18063-100000>