"Len Gross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> I have a host on my local 192.168.0 / 24 subnet that works fine in getting
> to the Internet via a default route.via a wireless connection.
> I want to develop some custom link protocols and I have placed two Ethernet
> NICs in the box.
> I want to be able to send packets from one NIC to the other and maintain the
> link to the Internet.
> I've tried a large number of things via rc.conf but when I ping of the cards
> it is not going out the interface; it just gets looped back.   (I test this
> by disconnecting the "crossover cable" between the two cards.)
> My current rc.conf has the following attempt, but this fails.
> #
> router_enable="Yes"
> gateway_enable="Yes"
> #  Ethernet 1:
> ifconfig_xl0="inet  netmask"
> # Ethernet 2
> ifconfig_rl0="inet  netmask"
> #
> # Set up loop between the two ethernet cards
> static_routes "xtor, rtox"
> route_rtox = "-host"
> route_xtor = "-host"
> Can I do what I want or must I have a second development box?

What you want to do doesn't make sense; there is no reason to send
packets to yourself over a wire.  If your machine is sending packets
to itself, the best path is over the loopback, and it doesn't make
sense to send it over a different path.  So you need to examine *why*
you want to do that before you can figure out the best approach to
your root problem.

I do protocol development and testing through a number of different
approaches, but for basic development there's usually no problem with
letting the packets go over the loopback.  For working on something
like DHCP, I need separate IP stacks, because that will modify the
routing tables differently on the server and the client(s).  For that,
I find virtual machines (qemu, most recently) to be the easiest and
most flexible environment.  I have also used environments based on
bpf(4) interfaces when I was working with IP stacks that ran
separately from the system's kernel.

Good luck.
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"

Reply via email to