Hi Vince, Hi list,
--- Vince Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
The 10.X.X.X subnet will never need to use any of
the
services of the 193.X.X.X subnet or the 193.R.R.R
router. It will always access internet via its own
10.R.R.R router, which only routes packets towards
the
internet
route_ adsl =-net target_subnet 10.R.R.R
In all cases we have static routes and routed is
disabled.
My questions are:
1) Is it appropriate/feasible to use routing in this
case, where we don't have physically separated
subnets? If not, what should be used instead?
2) Any hints, corrections
- Original Message -
From: Dimitris Xochellis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 6:43 PM
Subject: Routing problems
Dear list members,
I have two subnets (10.X.X.X and 193.X.X.X) on the
same physical network (ethernet). Subnet 10.X.X.X has
its
Hi List, hi Vince,
--- Vince Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Dimitris Xochellis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2003 6:43 PM
Subject: Routing problems
Dear list members,
I have two subnets (10.X.X.X and 193
Hi list,
In my local network I have two routers that provide
internet services.
-Can I use them both simultaneously?
-Do I need to have a second ethernet card (And add a
second interface to rc.conf) in order to use them
both?
-Can I configure my FreeBSD box to use the first
router when I am
relative Docs or Examples please?
Normally, one has one default route, which tells all non-local
traffic to go via your preferred router. You can add additional routes
like so:
route add -net 1.2.3.0/24 router1
route add -net 4.5.6.0/24 router2
There are better ways of managing routing than
I used to have a situation like this but it was a few years ago and I
have forgotten how to set this up in detail.
I have a class C network (public) and I have a FreeBSD box with lots of
aliases on it providing various services. There is also a Mandrake
Linux box that belongs to a customer
that they all really are
hacks. The non-hack way to do it would be to run real routing
protocols, but that requires cooperation from the ISPs...
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions
To unsubscribe, send any
?
Strictly speaking, this wouldn't be IP. There are a number of ways to
hack something like this, but bear in mind that they all really are
hacks. The non-hack way to do it would be to run real routing
protocols, but that requires cooperation from the ISPs...
And since I'm not a very good 'hack
On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 02:25:11AM -0700, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
I used to have a situation like this but it was a few years ago and I
have forgotten how to set this up in detail.
I have a class C network (public) and I have a FreeBSD box with lots of
aliases on it providing
On Nov 7, 2003, at 5:15 PM, Alex de Kruijff wrote:
You don't need static route at all. You only use this when you default
route doesn't apply. This doesn't apply to you since you only have
traffic on your 192.168.1.0/24 network. So all you need is an alias.
Thanks to all who replied. Helped me
I have a 4.8 box serving as a gateway with two connections to the
Internet. Is there some way to set the box up so that packets are
routed out through the same interface from which they arrived? For
example, if a connection is initiated on port 80 from a packet arriving
on one interface, is
routing which is easily done on
linux with
policy routing but i didn't found a similar function on bsd. My network
layout look like this, remember this network is running in one box.
internet---firewalljail(69.10.3.3)
| internaljail-0(192.168.19.1
...but not necessarily in relation to one another. ;-)
This is my second go at FreeBSD, and it's my umpteenth one with UNIXes in
general. Having done my share of Linux (with one recent battle being setting up
a web/mail/NFS/NIS/Samba server for a school project. *puh* I thought I knew
what
On Tuesday 21 October 2003 17:26, Henrik W Lund wrote:
...but not necessarily in relation to one another. ;-)
This is my second go at FreeBSD, and it's my umpteenth one with UNIXes in
general. Having done my share of Linux (with one recent battle being
setting up a web/mail/NFS/NIS/Samba
Petre Bandac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have to use a freebsd machine as a gateway router; I did manage to make natd
work, but now I have also a subnet routed to the machine
That sounds fine. How you handle it will depend on whether you want
outside hosts to be able to initiate connections
On Monday 20 October 2003 15:48 Anno Domini, Lowell Gilbert wrote using one of
his keyboards:
Petre Bandac [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have to use a freebsd machine as a gateway router; I did manage to make
natd work, but now I have also a subnet routed to the machine
That sounds fine.
for its gateway and all
other
traffic use dc0. Here is a diagram of my network.
Are you using ipfw? If so, on your FreeBSD 4.8 machine, an 'fwd' rule
should let you send anything you want that matches the rule out the port
you want. (This is called policy routing, where your policy bypasses
-
From: Luke Kearney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: FreeBSD Questions [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 07, 2003 10:12 AM
Subject: IPF and Routing
Hello,
I have question regarding IPNat and routing. The situation is that I
need to setup a network where each machine gets a unique global
Is there a way to route traffic based on port? Basically, I want to have
all traffic on port 8080 use the rl0 interface for its gateway and all other
traffic use dc0. Here is a diagram of my network.
Internet
|
Public IP
|
ADSL Modem/Router
Subject: IPF and Routing
Hello,
I have question regarding IPNat and routing. The situation is that I
need to setup a network where each machine gets a unique global IP
address from behind a firewall which performs NAT. I have 16 addresses
so my question is can I alias 14 addresses to the primary
Questions
Subject: IPF and Routing
Hello,
I have question regarding IPNat and routing. The situation is that I
need to setup a network where each machine gets a unique global IP
address from behind a firewall which performs NAT. I have 16 addresses
so my question is can I alias 14 addresses
On Tue, 7 Oct 2003, Luke Kearney wrote:
Hello,
I have question regarding IPNat and routing. The situation is that I
need to setup a network where each machine gets a unique global IP
address from behind a firewall which performs NAT. I have 16 addresses
so my question is can I alias 14
On Tuesday 07 October 2003 07:21 am, Luke Kearney wrote:
Thanks for your response. It may well be that I end up doing exactly
that to fix this issue in the short term. But there are some internal
resources that I don't want to have live IP's so I am trying for the
workable NAT solution.
Hello,
I have question regarding IPNat and routing. The situation is that I
need to setup a network where each machine gets a unique global IP
address from behind a firewall which performs NAT. I have 16 addresses
so my question is can I alias 14 addresses to the primary nic and then
config each
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dear FreeBSD users,
I urgenly need to connect 192.168.1.* network to the internet. What am I
doing wrong?
I have 2 networks, 192.168.0.* and 192.168.1.*
FreeBSD 5.1 is connected to both networks via 2 network cards, its ip is
192.168.0.3 and 192.168.1.2.
As of now from
Dear FreeBSD users,
I urgenly need to connect 192.168.1.* network to the internet. What am I
doing wrong?
I have 2 networks, 192.168.0.* and 192.168.1.*
FreeBSD 5.1 is connected to both networks via 2 network cards, its ip is
192.168.0.3 and 192.168.1.2.
As of now from the 192.168.1 network I
On Tuesday 30 September 2003 08:33 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dear FreeBSD users,
I urgenly need to connect 192.168.1.* network to the internet. What
am I doing wrong?
[...]
You forgot natd.
Am guessing your DSL or cable modem is doing NAT and assigning an
address to your FreeBSD
You forgot natd.
Am guessing your DSL or cable modem is doing NAT and assigning an
address to your FreeBSD system.
No the modem assigns IP to the 192.168.0.1 router, which in turn acts as
gateway for the rest of the network. I only have 1 real IP address. It
seems I have NAT already on the
Yes I realize about the 10.0... and 192.168 not being routed matter.
Previosly I always setup the network but never run out of IP address in
the same range(192.168.0.*). It happened this time. Therefore I created
the 192.168.1.* network but now it wont route. I can use NAT for that
purpose but
Hi :
I install a proxy (squid) with 2 nic's (one for PPPoE to access internet
via a DSL and other to the LAN), and is working ok with the pc's in the
same LAN, the problem is that I want to access the proxy from other LAN
located in others city's, we use 2 nets class A (7.0.0.0 and 10.0.0.0)
in
Hi!
I'm moving to FreeBSD from Linux. On Linux, I can do following:
ip address add 192.168.0.2/24 dev eth0 # assign address to first ether
ip address add 10.0.0.1/32 dev eth0 # alias
ip route add default via 192.168.0.1 src 10.0.0.1
The third line says that default route goes through
192.168.1.2|
| Wireless Bridge
Internal LAN
I want packets addressed to the 0 subnet to be passed to the rl0 interface
and the 1 subnet to the dc1 interface. All other packets should be passed
to dc0.
I've read the handbook on routing and I think my configuration
On Saturday 06 September 2003 12:19, Peter Ulrich Kruppa wrote:
Hi,
I am trying to substitute our school's old Win NT4 Server by a
SAMBA/FreeBSD. The SAMBA PDC itself works like a charm, but
without the NT machine it can't be located from the different
subnets - and so is quite useless.
Hi,
I am trying to substitute our school's old Win NT4 Server by a
SAMBA/FreeBSD. The SAMBA PDC itself works like a charm, but
without the NT machine it can't be located from the different
subnets - and so is quite useless.
This is our network design:
Internet
, September 02, 2003 3:36 PM
Subject: Need help with strange routing situation
I recently switched to a new DSL provider (DSLExtreme), and in doing so,
decided to opt to buy multiple static IP's. The idea is that I would like
one static IP for the server, and separate static IP's for our desktop
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi !
I have a question not FreeBSD specific, but since I'm going to use FreeBSD to
achieve what I need, I wanted your advice.
I just arrived in a new company and their network has 2 xDSL connexions to the
Net.
I was wondering what would be the best
, except it gets IP C.
[all else] Ideally I'd like them to be NAT'ted behindIP A
Not really that strange a routing situation, and definitely pretty easy,
here's one possible way:
[SNIP solution]
Just wondering...
..I've had to play with bridging recently because I'm playing
I recently switched to a new DSL provider (DSLExtreme), and in doing so,
decided to opt to buy multiple static IP's. The idea is that I would like
one static IP for the server, and separate static IP's for our desktop
machines, so that things such as IRC DCC, streaming media, etc. will just
work
to be NAT'ted behindIP A
Not really that strange a routing situation, and definitely pretty easy,
here's one possible way:
# KERNCONF, make sure you have:
options IPFILTER#ipfilter support
# rc.conf settings:
ipfilter_enable=YES # Set to YES to enable
On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 02:55:24 -0700, PEZALOT GESHKOV wrote:
I like u... my question is: Why FreeBSD not have
advanced routing mechanism... Linux have to... BSD
not? Sorry if interrupt u ...sweet trance!!!
One frend from Bulgaria!!!
When asking a question such as this, you are more likely
Hello,
First i'd like to ask you if you have found the solution to your problem with routing
the packets to the PicWeb server, because I have built too, and I'm wondering how
would be possible to redirect my internet connection to serial line where pic server
lives ?!?
Thank you very much
Gregory Edigaroff [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hello,
I have something like this:
ppp1 --
Router (FreeBSD) - Network
ppp2 --
Where ppp1 and ppp2 are ppp links looking at the same provider.
I would like to implement a load balancing and backup over ppp
Hello,
I have something like this:
ppp1 --
Router (FreeBSD) - Network
ppp2 --
Where ppp1 and ppp2 are ppp links looking at the same provider.
I would like to implement a load balancing and backup over ppp links.
I thought that in order to achieve this I need to add
with a
very strong chessplayer :)
see here
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/kernelconfig-confi
g.html
and good luck!!!
--
Error Code=-1 Continue?
Yes | No
--
desktop) but that doesn't seem to be enough. I've read something about
routing and gateways
connect these two with eachother so that both PC's can reach
internet?
I've enabled routed on both systems, (-s on the webserver, -q on the
desktop) but that doesn't seem to be enough. I've read something about
routing and gateways in the handbook, but I didn't quite get it. So can
anyone help
on the
desktop) but that doesn't seem to be enough. I've read something about
routing and gateways in the handbook, but I didn't quite get it. So can
anyone help me out?
You'd only use routing if each PC had a public IP address, and one
address was routed (upstream from your pair of machines
Hi all,
I have a friend with a cisco 827 adsl router. It has config hassles but
when that is sorted, we need to setup a freebsd box inside the cisco
router to handle a /29 block of ips. 3 questions...
a) Should I assume the cisco is not the worlds greatest firewall and setup
the freebsd machine as
Hi all,
I have a friend with a cisco 827 adsl router. It has config hassles but
when that is sorted, we need to setup a freebsd box inside the cisco
router to handle a /29 block of ips. 3 questions...
a) Should I assume the cisco is not the worlds greatest firewall and setup
the freebsd machine as
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a friend with a cisco 827 adsl router. It has config hassles but
when that is sorted, we need to setup a freebsd box inside the cisco
router to handle a /29 block of ips. 3 questions...
I'm running an identical setup here - a Cisco 827, a /29, and a FreeBSD
routing on the cisco by doing
something like...
ip classless (default)
ip route 203.44.288.0 255.255.255.248 ethernet0 10.0.0.2
no ip http server (default)
(NOTE: 10.0.0.2 is the ip of the fbsd box, 10.0.0.1 is the ethernet0 ip of
cisco router)
I have read the cisco docs but is slightly foreign
It is possible.
I have 2 routers. Each has 3 interfaces.
If :
I plug 2 interfaces on each to the other router,
the third interface on each is for the local subnet,
a route to the non-local subnet is added to each of the 2
interfaces on each router
Subnet A-A===B-Subnet B
Will the kernel load
Hi all,
I have a new adsl isp allocating my fbsd 4.7 box a
routable IP (end user ip)
I have 32 (read that as 30) ips of my own to use and
route for my domain.
I have 2 NICs in the gateway/router
How should I setup the IPs and aliases etc. I
figure...
(yyy.yyy.yyy.yyy = ISP end user ip they gave
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 7:25 PM
Subject: A routing/IP/NIC query Expert required
Hi all,
I have a new adsl isp allocating my fbsd 4.7 box a
routable IP (end user ip)
I have 32 (read that as 30) ips of my own to use and
route for my domain.
I have 2 NICs in the gateway
- Original Message -
From: Keith Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 5:25 PM
Subject: A routing/IP/NIC query Expert required
Hi all,
I have a new adsl isp allocating my fbsd 4.7 box a
routable IP (end user ip)
I have 32 (read that as 30
in the firewall.
Hmmm How am I doing now?
PS Do I benefit from bridge mode on the modem?
Keith
--- Micheal Patterson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Keith Spencer [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, June 28, 2003 5:25 PM
Subject: A routing/IP/NIC
Shantanu Mahajan wrote:
+-- Jaime [freebsd] [17-06-03 19:42 -0400]:
| On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Bryan W. Maxwell wrote:
| Im trying to set up my home system as 192.168.2.0, but somehow the local
| loop lo0 is still on 127.0.0.1.
|
| This is by definition. lo0 shouldn't ever be anything but
|
is usually when a remote host looks at the
connection and then decides to disconnect from it. For example, this can
be caused with ipfw rules. Also, double check your routing tables
(netstat -rn) on each host.
Jaime
On Wed, 18 Jun 2003, Shantanu Mahajan wrote:
+-- Jaime [freebsd] [17-06-03 19:42 -0400]:
| On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Bryan W. Maxwell wrote:
| Im trying to set up my home system as 192.168.2.0, but somehow the
local | loop lo0 is still on 127.0.0.1.
|
|This is by definition. lo0 shouldn't
+-- Bryan W. Maxwell [18-06-03 07:45 -0700]:
| Thanks everyone! I fixed the local address with the eth0 now so thats all
| good.
eth0? AFAIK, eth0 is not used in FreeBSD. It is used in
Linux. Which OS are you using?
Regards,
Shantanu
--
Want to know how many
On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 07:45:43AM -0700 I heard the voice of
Bryan W. Maxwell, and lo! it spake thus:
Thanks everyone! I fixed the local address with the eth0 now so thats all
good. But my serial line only allows me to ping 192.168.2.2, the otherside
is connected to a micropic web server
to handle slip encoded
transmissions. Well ill try to messa round with routing tabels some more
and see if it gets me anything. Thanks for the resposnses.
Bryan
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd
Im trying to set up my home system as 192.168.2.0, but somehow the local
loop lo0 is still on 127.0.0.1. How can i set up my local network to be the
other address. Also when setting up a serial line connection, how can I
tell both sides are pinging. I can ping one side, but the other gives me a
Bryan W. Maxwell wrote:
Im trying to set up my home system as 192.168.2.0,
192.168.2.0 is not a valid IP address. The last number must be somewhere
between 1 and 254 (inclusive).
but somehow the local
loop lo0 is still on 127.0.0.1.
The loopback address is always 127.0.0.1. It's not supposed to
On Tue, 17 Jun 2003, Bryan W. Maxwell wrote:
Im trying to set up my home system as 192.168.2.0, but somehow the local
loop lo0 is still on 127.0.0.1.
This is by definition. lo0 shouldn't ever be anything but
127.0.0.1. Also, you might want to use 192.168.0.2 instead of
192.168.2.0.
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 06:51:59PM -0400 I heard the voice of
Bill Moran, and lo! it spake thus:
192.168.2.0 is not a valid IP address. The last number must be somewhere
between 1 and 254 (inclusive).
Well, just to be anal about it... false.
192.168.2.0 is a perfectly valid IP address in
routed can't route my ppp connection
FreeBSD 4.8 Release
Is any other information is needed?
How can I solve problem?
router# Jun 12 11:26:03 router routed[63]: IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP ALLHOSTS: can't
assign requested address
router# Jun 12 11:26:03 router routed[63]: setsockopt (IP_ADD_MEMBERSHIP
RIP):
Im setting up a serial line connection and i am unable to ping because it says no
host. How do i set up my base local address to be 192.168.2.1? The commands i am
running are as follows,
slattach -h -l -n -s 19200 /dev/cuaa0
ifconfig sl0 192.168.2.2 192.168.2.3 up
Do i need to add a route
warren maxwell wrote:
Im setting up a serial line connection and i am unable to ping because it says no
host. How do i set up my base local address to be 192.168.2.1? The commands i am
running are as follows,
slattach -h -l -n -s 19200 /dev/cuaa0
ifconfig sl0 192.168.2.2 192.168.2.3 up
Do i need
the community. Thanks :)
Bryan
Please send the complete output of 'ifconfig' and 'netstat -rn'. I'm wondering
if there is a config problem elsewhere that is causing problems with the
routing.
--
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com
'. I'm
wondering
if there is a config problem elsewhere that is causing problems with the
routing.
--
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com
Ok doke here is ifconfig first,
lp0: flags=8810pointopoint,simplex,multicast mtu 1500
lo0: flags=8049up,loopback,running,multicast mtu
I have a box with three interface cards.
inside interface - 192.168.0.0/24
outside interface 1 - 196.15.149.64/26
outside interface 2 - 172.16.254.0/24
Inside connects to lan with windows pc's
outside 1 permanently connected to isp via wan router with diginet (t1 type
line) and is viewable from
: Nathan Nieblas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 10 June 2003 09:08
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Routing question
You can probably get what you want by compiling IPDIVERT and IPFIREWALL into
your kernel.
Then running some rules, this may or may not be accurate:
ipfw add
I am not doing a serial line client as you may guess from the subject. I am
doing a serail line connection to a small pic based webserver. It runs over
a serail line connection. Ive tried the command route add -net 192.168.2.0
netmask 255.255.255.0 and get a bad netmask error. I was wondeirng
08:33:08.160246 arp who-has A.B.C.154 tell A.B.C.145
It looks to me as if your ISP does not know you've subnetd your
subnet.
If it knew, it should never try to do an arp for the subnet
A.B.C.152/29 but route the ICMP to A.B.C.146 and that's it.
So the router of your ISP genuinely beleive that
[Please cc me directly with any replies. Thanks]
I'm setting up a multihomed firewall box. I have all interfaces up and
running but have something going wrong with routing. The setup:
ISP router [A.B.C.144/28, using A.B.C.145]
|
FIREWALL PUBLIC[A.B.C.146/29]
FIREWALL DMZ IFACE [A.B.C.153
Hi Mark,
I'm setting up a multihomed firewall box. I have all interfaces up and
running but have something going wrong with routing.
do you have forwarding enabled on the firewall?
Check if:
sysctl net.inet.ip.forwarding
shows:
net.inet.ip.forwarding: 1
-volker
-Original Message-
From: Volker Kindermann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I'm setting up a multihomed firewall box. I have all interfaces up and
running but have something going wrong with routing.
do you have forwarding enabled on the firewall?
Check if:
sysctl
, and given a P90 with 8mb of RAM capable of
routing 4 different 2mbit lines with 4 different nicks without a glitch,
I can say that your hardware can perform up to wire's maximum capacity.
Maybe it depends on what else other than routing services you have to
run on that machine, but I don't think
Does any one have any experience of using a FreeBSD
Box as a multicast router?
I have a PIII 800Mhz with two 100Mbps NICS, what kind
of throughput can I expect to get out of this setup?
We have been doing that for years.
But don't expect too much speed with a PIII 800, we usually have
Ahh! I am doing some testing of multicast video
streaming. It streams a single 8Mbps stream fine but
if I add another to it the throughput just falls away
for both streams.
Am I asking too much to stream approx 16Mbps? I kinda
thought that 100Mbps NICs and a PIII would handle it.
I don't suppose
tunnel over an FTP server; at least, not using
any FTP server software I know well...
The clients run Linux. Isn't it possible to get around this by routing their
reqests? They would only need to set the default gateway.
I may be misunderstanding you here, but I think that you're trying to
make
doesn't care if only a
few people connect out.
You can't create an IP tunnel over an FTP server; at least, not using
any FTP server software I know well...
The clients run Linux. Isn't it possible to get around this by routing
their reqests? They would only need to set the default gateway
Daniela [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have the following problem:
I'm running a FreeBSD SSH server.
Some clients can't connect to it. They are on a local network, connected to
the internet through another server. This second server used to allow SSH
login, and users could then connect to
1. pick up the multicast packets before they are routed in the kernel
That would not be a clean way to do it, but if you want to
concentrate on your routing module, why not using a firewall to do the
pick-up/redirection of the packets?
I read that IPF has a way to write rules that will redirect
software I know well...
The clients run Linux. Isn't it possible to get around this by routing their
reqests? They would only need to set the default gateway.
Daniela
___
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd
Hi,
I am working on a project that required me to modify the routing behaviours
at the kernel level. I have been searching information from the Internet and
FreeBSD.org. But no luck at all. Basically, I need to do the following:
1. pick up the multicast packets before they are routed
Hi all!
I have the following problem:
I'm running a FreeBSD SSH server.
Some clients can't connect to it. They are on a local network, connected to
the internet through another server. This second server used to allow SSH
login, and users could then connect to my server from the second server.
Hi,
I'm running FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE and I have trouble routing between two
NIC's. On one side I have a 192.168.1.0/24 network and on the other a 212.110.94.64/27
network on which I have mail and web servers, which the 192.168.1.0/24
hosts should be able to reach.
Here are the ifconfig
I'm running FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE and I have trouble routing
between two NIC's. On one side I have a 192.168.1.0/24
network and on the other a 212.110.94.64/27 network on which
I have mail and web servers, which the 192.168.1.0/24 hosts
should be able to reach.
Here are the ifconfig
I'm running FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE and I have trouble routing between two
NIC's. On one side I have a 192.168.1.0/24 network and on the
other a 212.110.94.64/27
network on which I have mail and web servers, which the 192.168.1.0/24
hosts should be able to reach.
Here are the ifconfig
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Philip Payne wrote:
I'm running FreeBSD 4.7-RELEASE and I have trouble routing between two
NIC's. On one side I have a 192.168.1.0/24 network and on the
other a 212.110.94.64/27
network on which I have mail and web servers, which the 192.168.1.0/24
hosts should
Thx everybody.
Problem solved.
/Hasse.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
Steve
SB
Sorry, will offcourse do.
I just removed the line and the problem was gone.
Subject: Re: Re: Routing problem ?
Date: Thursday 20 March 2003 21.37
From: Joshua Lokken [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Hasse [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Hasse ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
== blanktime=3000
fix, it would be
== SB appreciated.
== SB
== SB Tks.
== SB
== SB Steve
== SB
== Sorry, will offcourse do.
== I just removed the line and the problem was gone.
==
== Subject: Re: Re: Routing problem ?
== Date: Thursday 20 March 2003 21.37
== From: Joshua Lokken [EMAIL PROTECTED
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Equal-cost multipath routing for FreeBSD 4-STABLE?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Andrew Stesin wrote:
suppose we have FreeBSD box `A' with 3 network interfaces (ip
unnumbered or numbered - shouldn't matter). This 3 interfaces form 3
parallel IP
routing options: ignore ICMP redirect=YES log ICMP
redirect=YES SB IP gateway=YES TCP keepalive=YES.
SB Routing daemons:.
SB /Snip
SB -
SB What's worry me is the route: bad address: YES part.
SB
SB Does it mean that I have a bad address in my routingtable ?
SB I have tried
Hello FreeBSD gurus,
suppose we have FreeBSD box `A' with 3 network interfaces (ip unnumbered
or numbered - shouldn't matter). This 3 interfaces form 3 parallel IP
channels to some single destination `C' (let's think of another FreeBSD
box `B' with another 3 interfaces at the other end and `C'
On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 03:15:27PM +0200, Andrew Stesin wrote:
suppose we have FreeBSD box `A' with 3 network interfaces (ip unnumbered
or numbered - shouldn't matter). This 3 interfaces form 3 parallel IP
channels to some single destination `C' (let's think of another FreeBSD
box `B' with
It is unclear wether one2many support bundling through VLANs as well.
Any clues?
- Sten
-Original Message-
From: Matthew Seaman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 20. mars 2003 14:25
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Equal-cost multipath routing for FreeBSD 4-STABLE?
On Thu, Mar 20
501 - 600 of 639 matches
Mail list logo
