Mario Lobo wrote:
Yeah Stefan. They do take the default route. That is what I am already doing.
I even wrote a little prog using a variation of ping to do just that.
The problem lies with the fact that, there is a router between my rl0 and the
internet.
1) rl0 ---> router -->
Thanks to all that helped !!
--
//| //||
// | // ||
-//--//--|| ARIO LOBO
// //||
-
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mariolobo.70d.com
http://www.mallavoodoo.com.br
___
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://li
Yep, that'll do it. Just choose two time servers that you would never need
to use in real life. From google, you should be able to find a list of
nearby public time servers.
-john
On Tue, 12 Jul 2005, Mario Lobo wrote:
> That sounds close to what I need !!
>
> > > 1) rl0 ---> router
That sounds close to what I need !!
> > 1) rl0 ---> router --> antenna --> ISPx -->
> > internet
So would it be something like:
route add -host ${ip.of.public.host} netmask 255.255.255.255 gateway
${ip.of.rl0}
is that correct?
In this case that host will be "sacrifice
Lately "Mario Lobo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> The problem lies with the fact that, there is a router between my rl0 and the
> internet.
>
> 1) rl0 ---> router --> antenna --> ISPx --> internet
>
> So the fact that i can ping the hop next to rl0 doesn´t mean the link is
Mario,
I think the only way to do what you want is to find two hosts on the
internet that don't conflict with what you do on a day to day basis. Then
add custom routes for those two specific hosts, and with those routes, you
force traffic through each NIC.
A perfect example of two public servers
Yeah Stefan. They do take the default route. That is what I am already doing.
I even wrote a little prog using a variation of ping to do just that.
The problem lies with the fact that, there is a router between my rl0 and the
internet.
1) rl0 ---> router --> antenna --> ISP
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 08:38:16AM -0300, Mario Lobo wrote:
> First, thanks to all for the suggestions.
>
> Now, using the same scenario,
>
> > > 1) rl0 (real.ip.no.1) ---> ISP x
> > >
> > > 2) rl1 (real.ip.no.2) ---> ISP y
>
> Suppose 1) is down and I´m using 2). If I "ping www.google.com",
> i
add a static route
ping the other side of the directly connect interface
..etc..
fr
On Jul 11, 2005, at 4:26 PM, Mario Lobo wrote:
Forgive me if this is off-topic.
How could I force a packet to go out through an interface,
despite the default route?
Suppose I have two interfaces connected to
First, thanks to all for the suggestions.
Now, using the same scenario,
> > 1) rl0 (real.ip.no.1) ---> ISP x
> >
> > 2) rl1 (real.ip.no.2) ---> ISP y
Suppose 1) is down and I´m using 2). If I "ping www.google.com",
it will go out through 2). What I really need to do is to issue
the same "ping ww
On Mon, Jul 11, 2005 at 04:53:25PM -0300, Mario Lobo wrote:
> Forgive me if this is off-topic.
> How could I force a packet to go out through an interface,
> despite the default route?
You have a couple of options.
Look at CARP in 5.4, that might do what you want best.
man 4 carp
Also google fo
> Suppose 1) is down. I switch to 2). But I have to keep testing 1)
> to see when it comes back up. How could I force a packet (ping maybe?)
> to www.whatever.com through 1), despite the default route being 2) ?
>
> I am aready binding the ping packet to the IP I want but that´s not enough.
>
>
Forgive me if this is off-topic.
How could I force a packet to go out through an interface,
despite the default route?
Suppose I have two interfaces connected to the internet:
1) rl0 (real.ip.no.1) ---> ISP x
2) rl1 (real.ip.no.2) ---> ISP y
ISP y is just a backup link. ISP x is the working li
13 matches
Mail list logo
