* Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-05-01 17:25]: > On 2007/05/01 17:02, Luca Corti wrote: > > Stuart Henderson wrote: > > >It may be a hack, but 'virtual routing' is becoming more common as > > >people need to connect networks on the same address range (e.g. with > > >company mergers, or VPNs involving multiple organisations, where it > > >would be "challenging" to renumber everything). Google: vrf nat. > > > > In this case you'd need VRF/MPLS support on OpenBSD, which is not there > > (and not planned it seems). IIRC you can now have multiple routing > > tables but cannot assign overlapping IP addresses to multiple interfaces > > by assigning them to different VRFs. > > you can *assign* them but I'm not sure whether or not you can get > the rest of the system to work sensibly; that's why I'm not sure about > doing this with rtable.
you cannot put an interface to a different rtable yet. that had to happen so that all the arp stuff runs there instead of table 0, and only then you can have working overlapping address space on an openbsd box. I don't think there is too much left to make this actually, I wish somebody who actually needs that sits down for a few hours and codes that. > reply-to is more likely to be successful since the return route > information is attached to the PF state. it's certainly worth a try. nothing to be done here. ip-arp mapping will be fucked no matter what, and nothing can be done about it except renumbering or writing above mentionen code. -- Henning Brauer, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] BS Web Services, http://bsws.de Full-Service ISP - Secure Hosting, Mail and DNS Services Dedicated Servers, Rootservers, Application Hosting - Hamburg & Amsterdam
