Hi All,
Thanks for the information.
This is a huge problem for me, we badly need redundancy
capabilities. I'm surprised something like this hasn't been
addressed long ago. I guess a lot of the focus is on SMP and 'big
servers' and not router/appliance functionality in the newer FBSD
releases.
Anyway, thanks very much for the information. I'm going to have to
figure out some kind of workaround on my architecture. In the worst
case, I can shut off OSPF on the edge routers and use static routes
upstream and OSPF from there, but that is going to be a real
nightmare for network maintenance over the long haul.
Thanks for the information anyway. This has been driving me nuts the
past few months.
- mike
On Mar 16, 2006, at 11:37 AM, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
On Thu, Mar 16, 2006 at 07:35:20PM +0100, Bart Van Kerckhove wrote:
Is this by design, or just lack of time/interest?
If anyone feels up to the task of fixing/implementing what's
needed to make
this work, we'd be happy to sponsor its development.
This is a collision between the connected route implicitly created
by configuring an interface which has the same prefix length as
an existing route in the FreeBSD FIB.
This is a known issue and is by design.
Most BSD-derived implementations have this limitation. It needs to be
resolved in preparation for equal-cost multipath.
Sadly whilst I'd be more than happy to work on this (with or without
funding), I don't have the free time to do so, but I may be able to
eke out spare time to look at patches.
Regards,
BMS
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
