Thanks to everyone for your help/suggestions.  I think that I'm headed in the
right direction.

I still can't seem to force a ping through a particular interface, even when I
have both interfaces as default routes (I've tried both with and without mpath).
If it matters, in both cases I used a lower priority (higher #) for our low 
speed
metered connection.

Here's my current routing information:

default            10.150.228.105     UGS        5   168287     -     8 fxp0 
default            192.168.243.1      UGS        0        0     -    16 fxp1 

and "ping -I 192.168.243.152 8.8.4.4" still sends traffic out through fxp0.

I have verified that if I swap the priorities that all traffic goes out through
fxp1 so I know that that connection works.

It feels like I'm missing something obvious here.  Can someone point me in the 
right
direction?

Thanks again!

Jeff




On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 07:35:41PM -0300, Giancarlo Razzolini wrote:
> On 01-10-2014 14:14, Jeff wrote:
> > It sounds like "ping -I" is what I was looking for, but when I use it, it
> seems
> > to be sending out the packet with the right source address, but sending it
> to
> > the wrong interface.....are there any tricks here?
> You must enforce through pf route-to the packets to go through the right
> interface. Or, better yet, you should use multipath routing. Enable it
> on your systctl.conf. It will allow you to have multiple default
> gateways. If they both have the same priority the connections will go
> out in a simple round-robin fashion.
> 
> Then you should use ifstated, as mentioned by others. If your ISP's
> routers support SNMP, you could use it to check for the link status
> instead of relying on external pinging. I only use it as last resort. On
> some of my modems I even have a small script that connect with on the
> administrative web interface to check if the link is up. On others I use
> telnet and expect. I only use ping as a last resort.
> 
> I could help you with more elaborated examples, but I hope you got the idea.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pkcs7-signature which 
> had a name of smime.p7s]

Reply via email to