On 4/9/06, Mark Pecaut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Sorry if I missed something you mentioned before but what exactly are > you trying to do? > > I've used bridges several times before and it sounds like you are > doing the right stuff (there is not much to do).
It seemed easy enough, I just was not getting the expected behavior. > The rule is > generally that if you want your host to connect two physically > separate networks that are on the same subnet, use a bridge. For > example, an ISP assigns you 8 IPs and you want to use them all but > want a common firewall in front of them all but don't want nat. > > If you want to nat or otherwise connect two subnets together, that is > when you need routing and ip forwarding on. > > Can you give some information on how you want to connect everything > and the problem/goal? I'd be happy to help if I can. > > -mark Previously, this machine performed NAT with two NIC's. One NIC to the ISP, the other NIC to a switch to serve a few clients. The machine was upgraded, with several more NIC's. I thought I would take the switch out (hence the subject), and have the clients connect directly to the NIC's instead. There is currently only 2 clients, anyway. I put all but external NIC on a bridge. I thought I would post because I might have had the wrong idea about what a bridge would be used for. I will just have to give it another shot when my cd's arrive. > > On 4/9/06, Jeff Quast <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 4/9/06, Joachim Schipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Sun, Apr 09, 2006 at 01:10:21PM -0400, Jeff Quast wrote: > > > > On 4/9/06, Joachim Schipper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Apr 08, 2006 at 01:04:33PM -0400, Jeff Quast wrote: > > > > > > I've been using openbsd+pf for a router for some time at a > > neighbor's > > > > > > house. The router has been upgraded and now has several NIC's. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'd like to use multiple interfaces with crossover cables instead of > > a > > > > > > single interface with a switch behind it for the internal network, > > how > > > > > > would this best be done? I attempted to bridge all of the internal > > > > > > interfaces, but I don't think this would do what I need it to, since > > a > > > > > > bridge can't have an IP address, and it did not apear to work. > > > > > > > > > > You could bridge them - this would be the classical 'switch' solution. > > > > > How to get this done is another question. > > > > > > > > dc0 was the classic internal interface running dhcpd. I kept that > > > > interface as-is. > > > > > > > > I set dc1, dc2, and rl0 as (only) "up" in their hostname.if files. > > > > > > > > I placed dc0, dc1, dc2, and rl0 into bridgename.bridge0 with default > > > > settings, like add dc0 add dc1, etc. > > > > > > > > brconfig showed bridge0 as it probobly should apear. Mac addresses of > > > > each client were listed on the proper port. > > > > > > That looks good. > > > > > > > dhcpd would not respond to client requests. I could use tcpdump on, > > > > say rl0 and see the dhcpd requests, but I did not see it on dc0. with > > > > IP addresses set manually, a client on dc2 could not ping a client of > > > > the same subnet on dc1, etc. I assumed the bridge did not do what I > > > > thought it was supposed to do, and dropped it. > > > > > > Hmm, someone else will have to debug that. It'd probably be the > > > easiest/best solution, but I've never configured a bridge. > > > > > > > So I assigned each NIC an IP address of *.1, .2, .3, and .4. > > > > > > > > I assumed with IP forwarding, a client connected to the .4 NIC could > > > > reach the .1 NIC. I was wrong with that as well. > > > > > > > > I enabled the bridge again with the internal NIC's having an IP > > > > assigned A client connected to the .4 NIC still could not reach .1, or > > > > a client connected to .1. > > > > > > Have you set net.inet.ip{,6}.forwarding? > > > > Yes of course, it has been performing as a router for a while now with > > a single NIC for the local network. I did double-check it when i saw > > that behavior, though, and it is set. > > > > > > > > > > The other solution is to run it as a classical router serving a lot of > > > > > /32 subnets. > > > > > > > > > > Exactly what do you have problems with? > > > > > > > > I am guessing I did something fundamentaly wrong here? > > > > > > Probably, but what? ;-) > > > > > > Joachim > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your help, Joachim. I'll do a fresh install and try again > > when my 3.9 cd's arrive. Maybe I have stale configurations somewhere. > > > > I have a very difficult time finding anybody on mail archives or > > google doing something similar. The only information I can find is for > > tranparent firewalls. > > > > Does anybody have a link of somebody performing something similar?