Re: Routing issue with multiple interface on the same network.

2016-04-22 Thread sven falempin 
i do not think it is.
it makes no sense to have the same network on two interface, this way, IMHO.

On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Jean-Daniel Dupas 
wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to configure a machine with multiple interface on the same
> network
> (one standard interface and one carp interface).
>
> My problem is that if I set the default routing table to the second
> interface,
> the system can't find it and return "no route" for any distant  address
> resolution.
>
> The problem occurs even when using to standard iface (so carp is not
> involved).
>
> Note that my configuration works perfectly well on OpenBSD 5.7. I did test
> the
> problem with 5.9 and current, and both fail.
>
>
> Here is my configuration:
>
> --- ifconfig
> lo0: flags=8049 mtu 32768
> priority: 0
> groups: lo
> inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128
> inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x6
> inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff00
> vio0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
> lladdr 52:54:00:9e:b2:2b
> priority: 0
> media: Ethernet autoselect
> status: active
> inet 10.0.1.2 netmask 0x broadcast 10.0.255.255
> vio1: flags=8843 mtu 1500
> lladdr 52:54:00:fd:df:4c
> priority: 0
> media: Ethernet autoselect
> status: active
> inet 192.168.0.11 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
> vio2: flags=8843 mtu 1500
> lladdr 52:54:00:d0:e8:1d
> priority: 0
> groups: egress
> media: Ethernet autoselect
> status: active
> inet 192.168.0.12 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
>
>
> --- route -n show
> Routing tables
>
> Internet:
> DestinationGatewayFlags   Refs  Use   Mtu  Prio
> Iface
> default192.168.0.1UGS0   46 - 8
> vio2
> 10.0/1610.0.1.2   UC 3   26 - 4
> vio0
> 10.0.0.1   00:00:5e:00:01:01  UHLc   0   59 - 4
> vio0
> 10.0.1.2   52:54:00:9e:b2:2b  UHLl   0   34 - 1
> vio0
> 10.0.1.15  52:54:00:0e:62:c7  UHLc   0   16 - 4
> vio0
> 10.0.3.10  ac:87:a3:1d:3f:9d  UHLc   1   16 - 4
> vio0
> 10.0.255.255   10.0.1.2   UHb00 - 1
> vio0
> 127.0.0.1  127.0.0.1  UHl0  192 32768 1 lo0
> 192.168.0/24   192.168.0.11   UCP17 - 4
> vio1
> 192.168.0/24   192.168.0.12   UCP00 - 4
> vio2
> 192.168.0.1link#2 UHLc   0   25 - 4
> vio1
> 192.168.0.11   52:54:00:fd:df:4c  UHLl   0   16 - 1
> vio1
> 192.168.0.12   52:54:00:d0:e8:1d  UHLl   03 - 1
> vio2
> 192.168.0.255  192.168.0.11   UHPb   00 - 1
> vio1
> 192.168.0.255  192.168.0.12   UHPb   00 - 1
> vio2
>
> Internet6:
> DestinationGatewayFlags
>  Refs
> Use   Mtu  Prio Iface
> ::1::1UHl
>   0
> 0 32768 1 lo0
> fe80::1%lo0fe80::1%lo0UHl
>   0
> 0 32768 1 lo0
> ff01::%lo0/32  ::1UC
>0
> 1 32768 4 lo0
> ff02::%lo0/32  ::1UC
>0
> 1 32768 4 lo0
>
>
> -- ping 8.8.8.8
> PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
> ping: sendto: No route to host
> ping: wrote 8.8.8.8 64 chars, ret=-1
> ping: sendto: No route to host
> ping: wrote 8.8.8.8 64 chars, ret=-1
> --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
> 2 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss
> [1]81614 exit 1 ping 8.8.8.8
>
> If I change the default route to vio1, it works. The problem occurs only
> when
> the default route is on the second interface (vio2, or carp0 in my cases).
>
> Can someone confirm this is a bug in the routing system ?
>
> Regards
> Jean-Daniel.
>
>

-- 
-
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\

Routing issue with multiple interface on the same network.

2016-04-22 Thread Jean-Daniel Dupas 
Hello,

I'm trying to configure a machine with multiple interface on the same network
(one standard interface and one carp interface).

My problem is that if I set the default routing table to the second interface,
the system can't find it and return "no route" for any distant  address
resolution.

The problem occurs even when using to standard iface (so carp is not
involved).

Note that my configuration works perfectly well on OpenBSD 5.7. I did test the
problem with 5.9 and current, and both fail.


Here is my configuration:

--- ifconfig
lo0: flags=8049 mtu 32768
priority: 0
groups: lo
inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128
inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x6
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff00
vio0: flags=8843 mtu 1500
lladdr 52:54:00:9e:b2:2b
priority: 0
media: Ethernet autoselect
status: active
inet 10.0.1.2 netmask 0x broadcast 10.0.255.255
vio1: flags=8843 mtu 1500
lladdr 52:54:00:fd:df:4c
priority: 0
media: Ethernet autoselect
status: active
inet 192.168.0.11 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255
vio2: flags=8843 mtu 1500
lladdr 52:54:00:d0:e8:1d
priority: 0
groups: egress
media: Ethernet autoselect
status: active
inet 192.168.0.12 netmask 0xff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255


--- route -n show
Routing tables

Internet:
DestinationGatewayFlags   Refs  Use   Mtu  Prio Iface
default192.168.0.1UGS0   46 - 8 vio2
10.0/1610.0.1.2   UC 3   26 - 4 vio0
10.0.0.1   00:00:5e:00:01:01  UHLc   0   59 - 4 vio0
10.0.1.2   52:54:00:9e:b2:2b  UHLl   0   34 - 1 vio0
10.0.1.15  52:54:00:0e:62:c7  UHLc   0   16 - 4 vio0
10.0.3.10  ac:87:a3:1d:3f:9d  UHLc   1   16 - 4 vio0
10.0.255.255   10.0.1.2   UHb00 - 1 vio0
127.0.0.1  127.0.0.1  UHl0  192 32768 1 lo0
192.168.0/24   192.168.0.11   UCP17 - 4 vio1
192.168.0/24   192.168.0.12   UCP00 - 4 vio2
192.168.0.1link#2 UHLc   0   25 - 4 vio1
192.168.0.11   52:54:00:fd:df:4c  UHLl   0   16 - 1 vio1
192.168.0.12   52:54:00:d0:e8:1d  UHLl   03 - 1 vio2
192.168.0.255  192.168.0.11   UHPb   00 - 1 vio1
192.168.0.255  192.168.0.12   UHPb   00 - 1 vio2

Internet6:
DestinationGatewayFlags   Refs
Use   Mtu  Prio Iface
::1::1UHl0
0 32768 1 lo0
fe80::1%lo0fe80::1%lo0UHl0
0 32768 1 lo0
ff01::%lo0/32  ::1UC 0
1 32768 4 lo0
ff02::%lo0/32  ::1UC 0
1 32768 4 lo0


-- ping 8.8.8.8
PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes
ping: sendto: No route to host
ping: wrote 8.8.8.8 64 chars, ret=-1
ping: sendto: No route to host
ping: wrote 8.8.8.8 64 chars, ret=-1
--- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics ---
2 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss
[1]81614 exit 1 ping 8.8.8.8

If I change the default route to vio1, it works. The problem occurs only when
the default route is on the second interface (vio2, or carp0 in my cases).

Can someone confirm this is a bug in the routing system ?

Regards
Jean-Daniel.