On 19/10/15(Mon) 13:37, Gregory Edigarov wrote: > On 10/19/2015 01:24 PM, Stuart Henderson wrote: > >On 2015-10-19, Gregory Edigarov <[email protected]> wrote: > >>In order to conserve address space I am trying to confugure 'ip > >>unnumbred' in cisco terminology, that is have an interface borrow the ip > >>of a different interface, I am experimenting with vether0 and vlans the > >>thing is to have one 'main' address on some 'real' interface and then > >>just add routes pointing to the right interfaces. > >> > >># ifconfig vether0 192.168.100.1/24 up > >># ifconfig vlan2 vlandev vether0 up > >># ifconfig vlan3 vlandev vether0 up > >># route add 192.168.100.2/32 192.168.100.1 -cloning -ifp vlan2 > >>route: writing to routing socket: Network is unreachable > >>add host 192.168.100.2/32: gateway 192.168.100.1: Network is unreachable > >> > >>the same result I have if I am trying to configure this on a real > >>interface connected to my network: > >> > >># ifconfig vlan2 vlandev re0 > >># ifconfig vlan3 vlandev re0 > >># ifconfig re0 alias 192.168.100.1 > >># route add 192.168.100.2/32 192.168.100.1 -cloning -ifp vlan2 > >>route: writing to routing socket: Network is unreachable > >>add host 192.168.100.2/32: gateway 192.168.100.1: Network is unreachable > >> > >># uname -a > >>OpenBSD lbld12.duckdns.org 5.8 GENERIC.MP#1507 amd64 > >> > >>I thoght OpenBSD supports such thing. > >> > >>am I missing something? > >I don't *think* this is expected to work at the moment unless possibly > >you specify a destination MAC address with -link. > > > >It does work with point-to-point interfaces, e.g. you can have > >192.0.2.1/28 on em0 and 192.0.2.1/32 on pppoe0 and things will work > >as expected, but in that case you don't have a problem of picking a > >particular link-layer address, just "the pppoe0 interface" is enough > >information for the system to know where to send the packet. > > > >The best I've done so far for address conservation on ethernet-like > >interfaces is to use /31's (which works well). > > > Yes, I know /31 would work correctly, but I wanted further space > conservation.
Does it? > Is that a correct explanation that this does not work because our routing > table still wants a link layer address, errrmmm, arp table is included in > routing table? I believe it's simpler than that. You cannot attach a route to an interface without address, so I'm quite sure it will work if you add an address to vlan2.
