Re: per-interface default routes?
On 3/14/07, Alexandre Biancalana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 3/14/07, Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: yes. but ipfw is most universal having all needed things at one place. firewalling, routing, shaping, etc. PF too. is all at same place. And pf has nat built-in, so it runs in kernel space. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
per-interface default routes?
Suppose you have a freebsd box with two LAN interfaces, one numbered on netA and one on netB... Some applications are listening on the netA IP address, some on the netB IP address. Some applications may be listening on all interfaces but might have a directive that indicates which IP address to use for packets sourced from the application, like this: query-source address 192.0.2.2 port 53; What I want to happen is that packets sourced from the netA IP address go out the netA physical interface and packets sourced from the netB IP address go out the netB physical interface. That is, I want per-interface default routes (is this the correct term?). How do I do this? Thanks, -mark ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: per-interface default routes?
and packets sourced from the netB IP address go out the netB physical interface. That is, I want per-interface default routes (is this the correct term?). How do I do this? using ipfw rule example: add xxx fwd router_for_a_link all from outgoing_address/range to any please learn at least ipfw first if you didn't do already. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: per-interface default routes?
On Wed, 14 Mar 2007, Mark Messier wrote: Suppose you have a freebsd box with two LAN interfaces, one numbered on netA and one on netB... Some applications are listening on the netA IP address, some on the netB IP address. Some applications may be listening on all interfaces but might have a directive that indicates which IP address to use for packets sourced from the application, like this: query-source address 192.0.2.2 port 53; What I want to happen is that packets sourced from the netA IP address go out the netA physical interface and packets sourced from the netB IP address go out the netB physical interface. That is, I want per-interface default routes (is this the correct term?). How do I do this? Thanks, -mark Route has more information if you want to setup default routes for interfaces. Either that, or natd will yield a solution for you. -Garrett ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: per-interface default routes?
That is, I want per-interface default routes (is this the correct term?). How do I do this? Thanks, -mark Route has more information if you want to setup default routes for interfaces. Either that, or natd will yield a solution for you. natd needs IPFW and is quite CPU consuming compared to just ipfw, which does very well what was asked for. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: per-interface default routes?
Route has more information if you want to setup default routes for interfaces. I'm familiar with route(8)... but I don't see how that will work. Can you expand on your comment? I'm likely to do the ipfw approach suggested by Wojceich, as soon as I rebuild with options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD, Thanks, -mark ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: per-interface default routes?
On 3/14/07, Mark Messier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Route has more information if you want to setup default routes for interfaces. I'm familiar with route(8)... but I don't see how that will work. Can you expand on your comment? I'm likely to do the ipfw approach suggested by Wojceich, as soon as I rebuild with options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD, This could be done with pf route-to too. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: per-interface default routes?
interfaces. I'm familiar with route(8)... but I don't see how that will work. Can you expand on your comment? I'm likely to do the ipfw approach suggested by Wojceich, as soon as I rebuild with options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD, exactly, sorry i forgot to mention about that option. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: per-interface default routes?
I'm likely to do the ipfw approach suggested by Wojceich, as soon as I rebuild with options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD, This could be done with pf route-to too. yes. but ipfw is most universal having all needed things at one place. firewalling, routing, shaping, etc. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: per-interface default routes?
On 3/14/07, Wojciech Puchar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm likely to do the ipfw approach suggested by Wojceich, as soon as I rebuild with options IPFIREWALL_FORWARD, This could be done with pf route-to too. yes. but ipfw is most universal having all needed things at one place. firewalling, routing, shaping, etc. PF too. is all at same place. ___ freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
