fwiw, one piece of fallout from listing the same address on a loopback
interface as a real iface is that ntpd 'listen on *' tries to listen to
the same address twice and fails, so you need to list the addresses
individually in ntpd.conf.
(other than that, I haven't seen any major problems, but I'd
On 2007/02/07 13:36, Claudio Jeker wrote:
> Btw. for ospfd you can use "interface lo1" to reliably redistribute the
> loopback address.
I have configured a router with yyy.yy.yyy.247/32 on lo1 and yyy.yy.yyy.247/28
on vlan2244. This seems attractive since BGP sessions can be bound to an address
wh
On 2007/02/08 14:10, Dan Farrell wrote:
> - You likely want to use the lo0 interface for this (although I suppose
> lo1 will suffice, but lo0 is the 'standard' loopback address (don't beat
> me up about my use of the word 'standard'))
lo1 makes redistributing into OSPF simpler, as per Claudio's ex
t.
Ducking,
danno
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 5:54 PM
To: misc@openbsd.org
Subject: Re: Dummy Interface In OpenBGPd
The thing is, after I creatd /etc/hostname.lo1 as stated and I tring
On 2007/02/07 22:54, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Some hints? Should I manually add a route to it in the kernel routing table?
If you're going to use static routes, you might as well use an address
on an normal interface... it's only worth configuring BGP on a loopback address
if you have an IGP to
The thing is, after I creatd /etc/hostname.lo1 as stated and I tring to ping it
from other devices
within that network, it is not reachable. I put network 10.83.66.128/32 in my
/etc/bgpd.conf but
still I can only ping this interface from that host it is put in but not from
the other host.
Some
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-07 14:34]:
> What i want to accomplish and wanted to do is to be able to use such an
> interface when all the NIC
> on my machines are alloted for BGP.
that is not any clearer.
"such an interface"? get rid of that dummy interface terminology, that
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 01:08:31PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Can this looback interface be used as a sort of router-id just like in
> Quagga? Do I need to add routes for this IP address reachable elsewhere
> in my network?
Yes the IP needs to be reachable from elsewhere in your network --
What i want to accomplish and wanted to do is to be able to use such an
interface when all the NIC
on my machines are alloted for BGP.
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-07 14:08]:
>> I want to experiment with creating dummy interfaces under such topology just
>> like in Quagga.
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-07 14:08]:
> I want to experiment with creating dummy interfaces under such topology just
> like in Quagga.
this doesn't lead anywhere, really.
I don't know what "dummy interfaces .. just like in quagga" are, and,
moreover, it is completely unclea
Can this looback interface be used as a sort of router-id just like in Quagga?
Do I need to add
routes for this IP address reachable elsewhere in my network?
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 12:07:56PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Does that categorically mean there is no way, as of the moment, in
I have 4 machines running OpenBSD-stable and it used some AS in the 64512-65535
range. Now, two of
these machines will be eventually connected to two different AS, say obsd1 to
AS 64512 and obsd2
to 64513, while these four machines fall under one AS, say 64513.
>From my readings in the published
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 12:07:56PM -, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does that categorically mean there is no way, as of the moment, in
> openbgp to use a dummy interface just like in Quagga?
>
There are no dummy interfaces. If you like to use a loopback interface
create one.
# cat > /etc/hostna
On 2007/02/07 12:07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does that categorically mean there is no way, as of the moment, in openbgp to
> use a dummy
> interface just like in Quagga?
there categorically *is* a way, set up /32 address on a lo interface,
and use that as local-address in bgpd.conf, making sur
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-07 13:11]:
> Does that categorically mean there is no way, as of the moment, in openbgp to
> use a dummy
> interface just like in Quagga?
well, you have to be more explicity.
pseudo-interfaces are just interfaces. there is no visible difference
fo
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-07 13:14]:
> Yeah a loopback just like in Quagga or in Cisco.
loopback interfaces are pseudo-interfaces.
and as I said, interfaces are just interfaces for bgpd. pseudo or real,
there is no real difference.
--
Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [E
Does that categorically mean there is no way, as of the moment, in openbgp to
use a dummy
interface just like in Quagga?
> * [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-07 12:31]:
>> As I read the openbgpd documentation, there is not a single point wherein in
>> the examples a
>> dummy
>> int
Yeah a loopback just like in Quagga or in Cisco.
> On 2007/02/07 11:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> As I read the openbgpd documentation, there is not a single point wherein
>> in the examples a dummy interface is being used. Is a dummy interface
>> supported in OpenBGP?
>
> Do you mean 'loopback
On 2007/02/07 11:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> As I read the openbgpd documentation, there is not a single point wherein
> in the examples a dummy interface is being used. Is a dummy interface
> supported in OpenBGP?
Do you mean 'loopback interface'? Works just fine (certainly to an alias
on lo0,
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-02-07 12:31]:
> As I read the openbgpd documentation, there is not a single point wherein in
> the examples a dummy
> interface is being used. Is a dummy interface supported in OpenBGP?
-vvv :)
from bgpd's perspective, an interface is an interface, m
Hi,
As I read the openbgpd documentation, there is not a single point wherein in
the examples a dummy
interface is being used. Is a dummy interface supported in OpenBGP?
Regards,
Demuel
21 matches
Mail list logo
