Re: Incorrect route interface
On 12/03/2018 20:13, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
On 12/03/2018 18:04, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
On 11/03/2018 20:57, Marek Zarychta wrote:
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 05:46:52PM +, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
On 11/03/2018 06:04, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
11.03.2018 7:01, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
Just do not assign addresses from same network 10.20.0.0/16 to different
network interfaces
and you will be fine. Assign them all to right interface:
ifconfig_em0="inet 10.20.2.14 netmask 255.255.0.0"
ifconfig_em0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.15/32"
ifconfig_igb0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.16/32"
Interfaces meant to be all equal, last line should be:
ifconfig_em0_alias1="inet 10.20.2.16/32"
OK, I see. So this is in case I want many IPs assigned to the same
interface. What if I want one IP assigned to multiple interfaces (i.e.
so that the additional igb0-3 effectively work as a 4-port switch)?
Please consider bonding all NICs as one bridge(4) interface. Then
multiple IPs could be assigned to such interface.
Many thanks Eugene and Marek for your suggestions. I will now need to
decide if I want to fragment the network into subnets or bridge the
interfaces.
GregJ
I believe some of the problem you are experincing is addressed
in this differential:
https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14547
Your original configuration was(is) valid, just not common,
and I have not seen this done in more than a decade, but it
seems as if rstone@ also has someone doing this "multiple IP's
into same subnet on seperate interfaces".
Thanks for the link. That's interesting. According to this post that
configuration shouldn't be valid:
https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/multiple-network-interfaces-on-a-single-subnet.20204/
I'll disagree with the claims it is not valid. I shall however support
the claims that it is non-standard, and non-trivial to understand just
what it is that occurs in *BSD when you do this. I have seen this
"claimed to be invalid" coniguration in use several times over the
past 30 years.
Where people seem to get this "invalid" from is expecting the traffic
to be bound to an IP to go both in and OUT that interface is what is
not invalid, but a wrong assertion. Traffic WELL come in that interface,
as that is how ethernet macs, arp's an IP work. However it WELL go
out the interface that is selected by the routing table. If you
can seperate in your mind that this is how IN and OUT interfaces
are decided the rest becomes simply mechanical.
Simple typical *BSD installs end up with all traffic going out just
one of the interfaces, but I can write route rules that change that
artifact. And this is where the usage of this odd configuration
sometimes comes about.
With modern implimentations of *BSD that now have multiple fib's,
and things like netgraph, and ipfw one can get very creative in
what actually happens. And none of it is invalid, just often
miss understood. I can actually casue that traffic bound to
a specific IP to go in and out that specific interface. Ipfw's
ability to cause a packet to use an alternate fib is how.
ipfw add allow ip from ${ip_of_nicX} to any setfib ${fib_for_nicX}
I don't know much about the network stack in FreeBSD but I would assume
that I should be able to configure specific traffic (based on the
destination subnet, so nothing fancy) to go out of a specific interface.
Not only I wasn't able to do that, I was told my approach was wrong. So
I think I agree with you.
GregJ
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Incorrect route interface
> On 12/03/2018 18:04, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> >> On 11/03/2018 20:57, Marek Zarychta wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 05:46:52PM +, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
> On 11/03/2018 06:04, Eugene Grosbein wrote:
> > 11.03.2018 7:01, Grzegorz Junka wrote:
> >
> >>> Just do not assign addresses from same network 10.20.0.0/16 to
> >>> different network interfaces
> >>> and you will be fine. Assign them all to right interface:
> >>>
> >>> ifconfig_em0="inet 10.20.2.14 netmask 255.255.0.0"
> >>> ifconfig_em0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.15/32"
> >>> ifconfig_igb0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.16/32"
> > Interfaces meant to be all equal, last line should be:
> >
> > ifconfig_em0_alias1="inet 10.20.2.16/32"
> >
> OK, I see. So this is in case I want many IPs assigned to the same
> interface. What if I want one IP assigned to multiple interfaces (i.e.
> so that the additional igb0-3 effectively work as a 4-port switch)?
>
> >>> Please consider bonding all NICs as one bridge(4) interface. Then
> >>> multiple IPs could be assigned to such interface.
> >>>
> >> Many thanks Eugene and Marek for your suggestions. I will now need to
> >> decide if I want to fragment the network into subnets or bridge the
> >> interfaces.
> >> GregJ
> > I believe some of the problem you are experincing is addressed
> > in this differential:
> > https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14547
> >
> > Your original configuration was(is) valid, just not common,
> > and I have not seen this done in more than a decade, but it
> > seems as if rstone@ also has someone doing this "multiple IP's
> > into same subnet on seperate interfaces".
> >
>
> Thanks for the link. That's interesting. According to this post that
> configuration shouldn't be valid:
>
> https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/multiple-network-interfaces-on-a-single-subnet.20204/
I'll disagree with the claims it is not valid. I shall however support
the claims that it is non-standard, and non-trivial to understand just
what it is that occurs in *BSD when you do this. I have seen this
"claimed to be invalid" coniguration in use several times over the
past 30 years.
Where people seem to get this "invalid" from is expecting the traffic
to be bound to an IP to go both in and OUT that interface is what is
not invalid, but a wrong assertion. Traffic WELL come in that interface,
as that is how ethernet macs, arp's an IP work. However it WELL go
out the interface that is selected by the routing table. If you
can seperate in your mind that this is how IN and OUT interfaces
are decided the rest becomes simply mechanical.
Simple typical *BSD installs end up with all traffic going out just
one of the interfaces, but I can write route rules that change that
artifact. And this is where the usage of this odd configuration
sometimes comes about.
With modern implimentations of *BSD that now have multiple fib's,
and things like netgraph, and ipfw one can get very creative in
what actually happens. And none of it is invalid, just often
miss understood. I can actually casue that traffic bound to
a specific IP to go in and out that specific interface. Ipfw's
ability to cause a packet to use an alternate fib is how.
ipfw add allow ip from ${ip_of_nicX} to any setfib ${fib_for_nicX}
--
Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Incorrect route interface
On 12/03/2018 18:04, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: On 11/03/2018 20:57, Marek Zarychta wrote: On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 05:46:52PM +, Grzegorz Junka wrote: On 11/03/2018 06:04, Eugene Grosbein wrote: 11.03.2018 7:01, Grzegorz Junka wrote: Just do not assign addresses from same network 10.20.0.0/16 to different network interfaces and you will be fine. Assign them all to right interface: ifconfig_em0="inet 10.20.2.14 netmask 255.255.0.0" ifconfig_em0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.15/32" ifconfig_igb0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.16/32" Interfaces meant to be all equal, last line should be: ifconfig_em0_alias1="inet 10.20.2.16/32" OK, I see. So this is in case I want many IPs assigned to the same interface. What if I want one IP assigned to multiple interfaces (i.e. so that the additional igb0-3 effectively work as a 4-port switch)? Please consider bonding all NICs as one bridge(4) interface. Then multiple IPs could be assigned to such interface. Many thanks Eugene and Marek for your suggestions. I will now need to decide if I want to fragment the network into subnets or bridge the interfaces. GregJ I believe some of the problem you are experincing is addressed in this differential: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14547 Your original configuration was(is) valid, just not common, and I have not seen this done in more than a decade, but it seems as if rstone@ also has someone doing this "multiple IP's into same subnet on seperate interfaces". Thanks for the link. That's interesting. According to this post that configuration shouldn't be valid: https://forums.freenas.org/index.php?threads/multiple-network-interfaces-on-a-single-subnet.20204/ ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Incorrect route interface
> > On 11/03/2018 20:57, Marek Zarychta wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 05:46:52PM +, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > >> On 11/03/2018 06:04, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > >>> 11.03.2018 7:01, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > >>> > > Just do not assign addresses from same network 10.20.0.0/16 to > > different network interfaces > > and you will be fine. Assign them all to right interface: > > > > ifconfig_em0="inet 10.20.2.14 netmask 255.255.0.0" > > ifconfig_em0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.15/32" > > ifconfig_igb0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.16/32" > >>> Interfaces meant to be all equal, last line should be: > >>> > >>> ifconfig_em0_alias1="inet 10.20.2.16/32" > >>> > >> OK, I see. So this is in case I want many IPs assigned to the same > >> interface. What if I want one IP assigned to multiple interfaces (i.e. > >> so that the additional igb0-3 effectively work as a 4-port switch)? > >> > > Please consider bonding all NICs as one bridge(4) interface. Then > > multiple IPs could be assigned to such interface. > > > > Many thanks Eugene and Marek for your suggestions. I will now need to > decide if I want to fragment the network into subnets or bridge the > interfaces. > GregJ I believe some of the problem you are experincing is addressed in this differential: https://reviews.freebsd.org/D14547 Your original configuration was(is) valid, just not common, and I have not seen this done in more than a decade, but it seems as if rstone@ also has someone doing this "multiple IP's into same subnet on seperate interfaces". -- Rod Grimes rgri...@freebsd.org ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Incorrect route interface
On 11/03/2018 20:57, Marek Zarychta wrote: On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 05:46:52PM +, Grzegorz Junka wrote: On 11/03/2018 06:04, Eugene Grosbein wrote: 11.03.2018 7:01, Grzegorz Junka wrote: Just do not assign addresses from same network 10.20.0.0/16 to different network interfaces and you will be fine. Assign them all to right interface: ifconfig_em0="inet 10.20.2.14 netmask 255.255.0.0" ifconfig_em0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.15/32" ifconfig_igb0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.16/32" Interfaces meant to be all equal, last line should be: ifconfig_em0_alias1="inet 10.20.2.16/32" OK, I see. So this is in case I want many IPs assigned to the same interface. What if I want one IP assigned to multiple interfaces (i.e. so that the additional igb0-3 effectively work as a 4-port switch)? Please consider bonding all NICs as one bridge(4) interface. Then multiple IPs could be assigned to such interface. Many thanks Eugene and Marek for your suggestions. I will now need to decide if I want to fragment the network into subnets or bridge the interfaces. GregJ ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Incorrect route interface
On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 05:46:52PM +, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > > On 11/03/2018 06:04, Eugene Grosbein wrote: > > 11.03.2018 7:01, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > > > >>> Just do not assign addresses from same network 10.20.0.0/16 to different > >>> network interfaces > >>> and you will be fine. Assign them all to right interface: > >>> > >>> ifconfig_em0="inet 10.20.2.14 netmask 255.255.0.0" > >>> ifconfig_em0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.15/32" > >>> ifconfig_igb0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.16/32" > > Interfaces meant to be all equal, last line should be: > > > > ifconfig_em0_alias1="inet 10.20.2.16/32" > > > > OK, I see. So this is in case I want many IPs assigned to the same > interface. What if I want one IP assigned to multiple interfaces (i.e. > so that the additional igb0-3 effectively work as a 4-port switch)? > Please consider bonding all NICs as one bridge(4) interface. Then multiple IPs could be assigned to such interface. -- Marek Zarychta signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: Incorrect route interface
On 11/03/2018 06:04, Eugene Grosbein wrote: 11.03.2018 7:01, Grzegorz Junka wrote: Just do not assign addresses from same network 10.20.0.0/16 to different network interfaces and you will be fine. Assign them all to right interface: ifconfig_em0="inet 10.20.2.14 netmask 255.255.0.0" ifconfig_em0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.15/32" ifconfig_igb0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.16/32" Interfaces meant to be all equal, last line should be: ifconfig_em0_alias1="inet 10.20.2.16/32" OK, I see. So this is in case I want many IPs assigned to the same interface. What if I want one IP assigned to multiple interfaces (i.e. so that the additional igb0-3 effectively work as a 4-port switch)? ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Incorrect route interface
11.03.2018 7:01, Grzegorz Junka wrote: >> Just do not assign addresses from same network 10.20.0.0/16 to different >> network interfaces >> and you will be fine. Assign them all to right interface: >> >> ifconfig_em0="inet 10.20.2.14 netmask 255.255.0.0" >> ifconfig_em0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.15/32" >> ifconfig_igb0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.16/32" Interfaces meant to be all equal, last line should be: ifconfig_em0_alias1="inet 10.20.2.16/32" ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Incorrect route interface
On 10/03/2018 22:43, Eugene Grosbein wrote: 11.03.2018 5:01, Grzegorz Junka wrote: In rc.conf I have: hostname="some.server.com" ifconfig_em0="inet 10.20.2.14 netmask 255.255.0.0" ifconfig_em1="inet 10.20.2.15 netmask 255.255.0.0" ifconfig_igb0="inet 10.20.2.16 netmask 255.255.0.0" Just do not assign addresses from same network 10.20.0.0/16 to different network interfaces and you will be fine. Assign them all to right interface: ifconfig_em0="inet 10.20.2.14 netmask 255.255.0.0" ifconfig_em0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.15/32" ifconfig_igb0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.16/32" Do not try to use several physical network cards to connect hosts using just one IP network as generally each card/interface needs distinct IP network to work flawlessly. Did you mean: ifconfig_em1_alias0="inet 10.20.2.15/32" I don't quite understand how you can assign an alias to an interface (igb0 in this case) without configuring it with an IP first? According to the documentation an alias is an additional network address, not the only one? ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: Incorrect route interface
11.03.2018 5:01, Grzegorz Junka wrote: > In rc.conf I have: > > hostname="some.server.com" > ifconfig_em0="inet 10.20.2.14 netmask 255.255.0.0" > ifconfig_em1="inet 10.20.2.15 netmask 255.255.0.0" > ifconfig_igb0="inet 10.20.2.16 netmask 255.255.0.0" Just do not assign addresses from same network 10.20.0.0/16 to different network interfaces and you will be fine. Assign them all to right interface: ifconfig_em0="inet 10.20.2.14 netmask 255.255.0.0" ifconfig_em0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.15/32" ifconfig_igb0_alias0="inet 10.20.2.16/32" Do not try to use several physical network cards to connect hosts using just one IP network as generally each card/interface needs distinct IP network to work flawlessly. ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
