Re: How to bind a route to a network adapter and not IP
On Mon, 2012-06-18 at 23:07 +0200, Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> On Monday 18 June 2012 23:03:34 H wrote:
> > On Monday 18 June 2012 12:54 Hans Petter Selasky wrote:
> > > On Monday 18 June 2012 00:00:51 H wrote:
> > > > sth...@nethelp.no wrote:
> > > > >>> I loose packets because I use a WLAN adapter. Sometimes the link is
> > > > >>> down for various reasons, and then the routes start changing for
> > > > >>> manually created routes, and I want to prevent that.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> well that is certainly not a reason for changing routes
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I have the feeling you are not explaining good enough what really is
> > > > >> going on and it may help sending your configurations and an example
> > > > >> of routes and IP addresses before and after this route change
> > > > >
> > > > > Why is this so hard to understand? "Link down" leads to "static route
> > > > > is deleted". This is standard FreeBSD behavior, and has been this way
> > > > > for as long as I can remember (btw, I believe this behavior is from
> > > > > the original BSD, not FreeBSD specific).
> > > > >
> > > > > You can show this by having a static default route pointing to an
> > > > > address on an Ethernet interface which has link. And then pulling the
> > > > > TP cable from the Ethernet interface. Observe that the default route
> > > > > is automatically removed.
> > > >
> > > > may be you have not understood your own problem yet
> > > >
> > > > because so far is nothing to be understood because none of your
> > > > statements is correct, it is also not FreeBSD's standard behavior and
> > > > never has been
> > > >
> > > > as long as there is the valid IP address on the related interface, no
> > > > static route will be deleted, you can even boot without cable and the
> > > > [default] static route is there
> > > >
> > > > so you need to explain better your problem in order to understand it
> > > >
> > > > probably you have some other stuff running, thirdparty network manager
> > > > or something, incorrect or incomplete ppoe or dhc configuration or
> > > > whatever leads to the problem
> > > >
> > > > FYI static routes usually are the manually configured routes, so what
> > > > you say is redundant and not correct, I guess you're loosing some kind
> > > > of dynamic route
> > > >
> > > > since WL networks usually do not run RIP/OSPF/BGP I guess the route you
> > > > apparently loose is coming from some dhcp server and may be your
> > > > dhclient configuration is incomplete or none existent, but here now it
> > > > would be useful to see your config
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I think we need to distinguish between two matters. One is where the
> > > route is directly reachable on the local-net of the network adapter, and
> > > ARP is valid/responding. The second case is when the route is not
> > > directly reachable. The second case is where the problem happens, like
> > > Stian kindly explained.
> > >
> > > # For example:
> > >
> > > ifconfig wlan0 10.0.0.2 255.255.255.0 up
> > >
> > > # Assume the router is at 10.0.0.1
> > > # And we want to reach a certain destination through 10.0.0.1
> > > # Then we do:
> > >
> > > route add 10.22.1.1 10.0.0.1
> >
> > no no no my friend, wrong again
> >
> > that is a static route and it goes away same way it was created, manually
> > or by deleting the IP address 10.0.0.2 from the related interface
> >
> > wether there is or not an active link on that interface does not matter
> >
>
> Hi,
>
> Can it be that dhclient which I'm running on this interface with manual
> routes
> disrupts stuff then ??
>
> --HPS
I think you can get the effect you want with dhclient.conf. I just
experimented a bit and it works for me, installing the static route when
it gets an address (and it gets removed if I manually configure the
interface back to 0.0.0.0), using this dhclient.conf:
interface "re0" {
supersede static-routes 10.1.1.1 172.22.42.240;
}
It works with either the 'prepend' or 'supersede' verb, depending on
your needs. You can also specify multiple static routes, see
dhcp-options(5).
-- Ian
___
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: How to bind a route to a network adapter and not IP
On Monday 18 June 2012 18:07 Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On Monday 18 June 2012 23:03:34 H wrote: > > On Monday 18 June 2012 12:54 Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > > On Monday 18 June 2012 00:00:51 H wrote: > > > > sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > > > > >>> I loose packets because I use a WLAN adapter. Sometimes the link > > > > >>> is down for various reasons, and then the routes start changing > > > > >>> for manually created routes, and I want to prevent that. > > > > >> > > > > >> well that is certainly not a reason for changing routes > > > > >> > > > > >> I have the feeling you are not explaining good enough what really > > > > >> is going on and it may help sending your configurations and an > > > > >> example of routes and IP addresses before and after this route > > > > >> change > > > > > > > > > > Why is this so hard to understand? "Link down" leads to "static > > > > > route is deleted". This is standard FreeBSD behavior, and has been > > > > > this way for as long as I can remember (btw, I believe this > > > > > behavior is from the original BSD, not FreeBSD specific). > > > > > > > > > > You can show this by having a static default route pointing to an > > > > > address on an Ethernet interface which has link. And then pulling > > > > > the TP cable from the Ethernet interface. Observe that the default > > > > > route is automatically removed. > > > > > > > > may be you have not understood your own problem yet > > > > > > > > because so far is nothing to be understood because none of your > > > > statements is correct, it is also not FreeBSD's standard behavior and > > > > never has been > > > > > > > > as long as there is the valid IP address on the related interface, no > > > > static route will be deleted, you can even boot without cable and the > > > > [default] static route is there > > > > > > > > so you need to explain better your problem in order to understand it > > > > > > > > probably you have some other stuff running, thirdparty network > > > > manager or something, incorrect or incomplete ppoe or dhc > > > > configuration or whatever leads to the problem > > > > > > > > FYI static routes usually are the manually configured routes, so what > > > > you say is redundant and not correct, I guess you're loosing some > > > > kind of dynamic route > > > > > > > > since WL networks usually do not run RIP/OSPF/BGP I guess the route > > > > you apparently loose is coming from some dhcp server and may be your > > > > dhclient configuration is incomplete or none existent, but here now > > > > it would be useful to see your config > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I think we need to distinguish between two matters. One is where the > > > route is directly reachable on the local-net of the network adapter, > > > and ARP is valid/responding. The second case is when the route is not > > > directly reachable. The second case is where the problem happens, like > > > Stian kindly explained. > > > > > > # For example: > > > > > > ifconfig wlan0 10.0.0.2 255.255.255.0 up > > > > > > # Assume the router is at 10.0.0.1 > > > # And we want to reach a certain destination through 10.0.0.1 > > > # Then we do: > > > > > > route add 10.22.1.1 10.0.0.1 > > > > no no no my friend, wrong again > > > > that is a static route and it goes away same way it was created, manually > > or by deleting the IP address 10.0.0.2 from the related interface > > > > wether there is or not an active link on that interface does not matter > > Hi, > > Can it be that dhclient which I'm running on this interface with manual > routes disrupts stuff then ?? > so now we're coming to the point ... on renewal of the IP address the interface is set do down, old IP removed and the new one (even if the same as before) is associated and the IF comes up again means, any route associated get lost, you may get a new one (default) from the dhcp server you could set some options in your /etc/dhclient.conf to match your needs you could request a longer lease time, eventually reduce the retry time to get less down time check your log what the dhcp server send to you may be you try something like: timeout 60; retry 60; send dhcp-lease-time 36000; (or more to cover your longest up time) if the longer lease time does not work, then I guess then you could use the 'script "name"' option to set your special route after renewal Hans -- HM +55 17 8111.3300 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: How to bind a route to a network adapter and not IP
On Monday 18 June 2012 23:03:34 H wrote: > On Monday 18 June 2012 12:54 Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > On Monday 18 June 2012 00:00:51 H wrote: > > > sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > > > >>> I loose packets because I use a WLAN adapter. Sometimes the link is > > > >>> down for various reasons, and then the routes start changing for > > > >>> manually created routes, and I want to prevent that. > > > >> > > > >> well that is certainly not a reason for changing routes > > > >> > > > >> I have the feeling you are not explaining good enough what really is > > > >> going on and it may help sending your configurations and an example > > > >> of routes and IP addresses before and after this route change > > > > > > > > Why is this so hard to understand? "Link down" leads to "static route > > > > is deleted". This is standard FreeBSD behavior, and has been this way > > > > for as long as I can remember (btw, I believe this behavior is from > > > > the original BSD, not FreeBSD specific). > > > > > > > > You can show this by having a static default route pointing to an > > > > address on an Ethernet interface which has link. And then pulling the > > > > TP cable from the Ethernet interface. Observe that the default route > > > > is automatically removed. > > > > > > may be you have not understood your own problem yet > > > > > > because so far is nothing to be understood because none of your > > > statements is correct, it is also not FreeBSD's standard behavior and > > > never has been > > > > > > as long as there is the valid IP address on the related interface, no > > > static route will be deleted, you can even boot without cable and the > > > [default] static route is there > > > > > > so you need to explain better your problem in order to understand it > > > > > > probably you have some other stuff running, thirdparty network manager > > > or something, incorrect or incomplete ppoe or dhc configuration or > > > whatever leads to the problem > > > > > > FYI static routes usually are the manually configured routes, so what > > > you say is redundant and not correct, I guess you're loosing some kind > > > of dynamic route > > > > > > since WL networks usually do not run RIP/OSPF/BGP I guess the route you > > > apparently loose is coming from some dhcp server and may be your > > > dhclient configuration is incomplete or none existent, but here now it > > > would be useful to see your config > > > > Hi, > > > > I think we need to distinguish between two matters. One is where the > > route is directly reachable on the local-net of the network adapter, and > > ARP is valid/responding. The second case is when the route is not > > directly reachable. The second case is where the problem happens, like > > Stian kindly explained. > > > > # For example: > > > > ifconfig wlan0 10.0.0.2 255.255.255.0 up > > > > # Assume the router is at 10.0.0.1 > > # And we want to reach a certain destination through 10.0.0.1 > > # Then we do: > > > > route add 10.22.1.1 10.0.0.1 > > no no no my friend, wrong again > > that is a static route and it goes away same way it was created, manually > or by deleting the IP address 10.0.0.2 from the related interface > > wether there is or not an active link on that interface does not matter > Hi, Can it be that dhclient which I'm running on this interface with manual routes disrupts stuff then ?? --HPS ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: How to bind a route to a network adapter and not IP
On Monday 18 June 2012 12:54 Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On Monday 18 June 2012 00:00:51 H wrote: > > sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > > >>> I loose packets because I use a WLAN adapter. Sometimes the link is > > >>> down for various reasons, and then the routes start changing for > > >>> manually created routes, and I want to prevent that. > > >> > > >> well that is certainly not a reason for changing routes > > >> > > >> I have the feeling you are not explaining good enough what really is > > >> going on and it may help sending your configurations and an example of > > >> routes and IP addresses before and after this route change > > > > > > Why is this so hard to understand? "Link down" leads to "static route > > > is deleted". This is standard FreeBSD behavior, and has been this way > > > for as long as I can remember (btw, I believe this behavior is from > > > the original BSD, not FreeBSD specific). > > > > > > You can show this by having a static default route pointing to an > > > address on an Ethernet interface which has link. And then pulling the > > > TP cable from the Ethernet interface. Observe that the default route > > > is automatically removed. > > > > may be you have not understood your own problem yet > > > > because so far is nothing to be understood because none of your > > statements is correct, it is also not FreeBSD's standard behavior and > > never has been > > > > as long as there is the valid IP address on the related interface, no > > static route will be deleted, you can even boot without cable and the > > [default] static route is there > > > > so you need to explain better your problem in order to understand it > > > > probably you have some other stuff running, thirdparty network manager > > or something, incorrect or incomplete ppoe or dhc configuration or > > whatever leads to the problem > > > > FYI static routes usually are the manually configured routes, so what > > you say is redundant and not correct, I guess you're loosing some kind > > of dynamic route > > > > since WL networks usually do not run RIP/OSPF/BGP I guess the route you > > apparently loose is coming from some dhcp server and may be your > > dhclient configuration is incomplete or none existent, but here now it > > would be useful to see your config > > Hi, > > I think we need to distinguish between two matters. One is where the route > is directly reachable on the local-net of the network adapter, and ARP is > valid/responding. The second case is when the route is not directly > reachable. The second case is where the problem happens, like Stian kindly > explained. > > # For example: > > ifconfig wlan0 10.0.0.2 255.255.255.0 up > > # Assume the router is at 10.0.0.1 > # And we want to reach a certain destination through 10.0.0.1 > # Then we do: > > route add 10.22.1.1 10.0.0.1 > no no no my friend, wrong again that is a static route and it goes away same way it was created, manually or by deleting the IP address 10.0.0.2 from the related interface wether there is or not an active link on that interface does not matter Hans > # > # First the FreeBSD network stack will resolve the ethernet address for > # 10.0.0.1, and all 10.22.1.1 IP packets will get sent to 10.0.0.1. > # > > However, if the wlan0 link goes down, which sometimes happen, then the > route for 10.22.1.1 is deleted. This is sometimes very annoying, and also, > if it happens that the 10.22.1.1 is reachable from another network > adapter, then traffic sometimes can end up mis-routed. > > --HPS > ___ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" -- HM +55 17 8111.3300 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: How to bind a route to a network adapter and not IP
On Monday 18 June 2012 00:00:51 H wrote: > sth...@nethelp.no wrote: > >>> I loose packets because I use a WLAN adapter. Sometimes the link is > >>> down for various reasons, and then the routes start changing for > >>> manually created routes, and I want to prevent that. > >> > >> well that is certainly not a reason for changing routes > >> > >> I have the feeling you are not explaining good enough what really is > >> going on and it may help sending your configurations and an example of > >> routes and IP addresses before and after this route change > > > > Why is this so hard to understand? "Link down" leads to "static route > > is deleted". This is standard FreeBSD behavior, and has been this way > > for as long as I can remember (btw, I believe this behavior is from > > the original BSD, not FreeBSD specific). > > > > You can show this by having a static default route pointing to an > > address on an Ethernet interface which has link. And then pulling the > > TP cable from the Ethernet interface. Observe that the default route > > is automatically removed. > > may be you have not understood your own problem yet > > because so far is nothing to be understood because none of your > statements is correct, it is also not FreeBSD's standard behavior and > never has been > > as long as there is the valid IP address on the related interface, no > static route will be deleted, you can even boot without cable and the > [default] static route is there > > so you need to explain better your problem in order to understand it > > probably you have some other stuff running, thirdparty network manager > or something, incorrect or incomplete ppoe or dhc configuration or > whatever leads to the problem > > FYI static routes usually are the manually configured routes, so what > you say is redundant and not correct, I guess you're loosing some kind > of dynamic route > > since WL networks usually do not run RIP/OSPF/BGP I guess the route you > apparently loose is coming from some dhcp server and may be your > dhclient configuration is incomplete or none existent, but here now it > would be useful to see your config Hi, I think we need to distinguish between two matters. One is where the route is directly reachable on the local-net of the network adapter, and ARP is valid/responding. The second case is when the route is not directly reachable. The second case is where the problem happens, like Stian kindly explained. # For example: ifconfig wlan0 10.0.0.2 255.255.255.0 up # Assume the router is at 10.0.0.1 # And we want to reach a certain destination through 10.0.0.1 # Then we do: route add 10.22.1.1 10.0.0.1 # # First the FreeBSD network stack will resolve the ethernet address for # 10.0.0.1, and all 10.22.1.1 IP packets will get sent to 10.0.0.1. # However, if the wlan0 link goes down, which sometimes happen, then the route for 10.22.1.1 is deleted. This is sometimes very annoying, and also, if it happens that the 10.22.1.1 is reachable from another network adapter, then traffic sometimes can end up mis-routed. --HPS ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: How to bind a route to a network adapter and not IP
On 06/17/2012 03:52 PM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: On Friday 15 June 2012 19:02:27 animelo...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps you can ask the very same question in another way so its easier to understand why you losing packets? All in all I always thought TCP/IP was the basic unit in Internet based networking but feel free to correct me if you have any news I might have missed... :) Also do you have any idea why AMD based CPUs could be vulnerable to this alternative networking scheme and cause a remote denial service in fbsd stable but not in CURRENT? Thanks, Etienne Hi, I loose packets because I use a WLAN adapter. Sometimes the link is down for various reasons, and then the routes start changing for manually created routes, and I want to prevent that. --HPS Hi Hans, As per the usual PR triage workflow, I recommend you fill a bug report and add me to the CC list. :-) And based on your comment I figure I'm not the only one to complain with recent FreeBSD TCP/IP based networking issues... *** TEMPORARY SOLUTION *** WORKAROUND *** As a workaround, or until FreeBSD has approved a WITHOUT_OFDM option, I recommend you consider one of the following options: 1. Change your network adapter to Ethernet-class carrier for TCP/IP dynamic routing. 2. Switch to CCK modulation (if you really MUST stick with wireless IP encapsulation .) % ifconfig mode 11b % man ifconfig(8) for more info. In case you really want to stick with wireless based carrier (HIGHLY NOT RECOMMENDED for *ALL* FreeBSD users until it has been demonstrated that there is no privacy disclosure or potential health issues with any wireless frequency modulation scheme), consider using CCK modulation (802.11b) which should be point-to-point modulation scheme. Btw I believe this is a separate issue than the previous OpenSSL/libpng remote vulnerability (sysret) discussed a few days ago but as you comment suggest this bug should only imply wireless-based devices using the iEEE 802.11 stack for high-speed frequency modulation. Regards, Etienne References -- 1. http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat/2011-March/006577.html 2. https://gthc.org/wiki/Advisories/OFDM_20110315 -- Etienne Robillard Occupation: Software Developer Company:Green Tea Hackers Club Email: e...@gthcfoundation.org Website:gthcfoundation.org Skype ID: incidah "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -- Winston Churchill ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: How to bind a route to a network adapter and not IP
sth...@nethelp.no wrote: >>> I loose packets because I use a WLAN adapter. Sometimes the link is down >>> for >>> various reasons, and then the routes start changing for manually created >>> routes, and I want to prevent that. >> >> well that is certainly not a reason for changing routes >> >> I have the feeling you are not explaining good enough what really is >> going on and it may help sending your configurations and an example of >> routes and IP addresses before and after this route change > > Why is this so hard to understand? "Link down" leads to "static route > is deleted". This is standard FreeBSD behavior, and has been this way > for as long as I can remember (btw, I believe this behavior is from > the original BSD, not FreeBSD specific). > > You can show this by having a static default route pointing to an > address on an Ethernet interface which has link. And then pulling the > TP cable from the Ethernet interface. Observe that the default route > is automatically removed. may be you have not understood your own problem yet because so far is nothing to be understood because none of your statements is correct, it is also not FreeBSD's standard behavior and never has been as long as there is the valid IP address on the related interface, no static route will be deleted, you can even boot without cable and the [default] static route is there so you need to explain better your problem in order to understand it probably you have some other stuff running, thirdparty network manager or something, incorrect or incomplete ppoe or dhc configuration or whatever leads to the problem FYI static routes usually are the manually configured routes, so what you say is redundant and not correct, I guess you're loosing some kind of dynamic route since WL networks usually do not run RIP/OSPF/BGP I guess the route you apparently loose is coming from some dhcp server and may be your dhclient configuration is incomplete or none existent, but here now it would be useful to see your config -- H +55 11 4249. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to bind a route to a network adapter and not IP
> > I loose packets because I use a WLAN adapter. Sometimes the link is down > > for > > various reasons, and then the routes start changing for manually created > > routes, and I want to prevent that. > > well that is certainly not a reason for changing routes > > I have the feeling you are not explaining good enough what really is > going on and it may help sending your configurations and an example of > routes and IP addresses before and after this route change Why is this so hard to understand? "Link down" leads to "static route is deleted". This is standard FreeBSD behavior, and has been this way for as long as I can remember (btw, I believe this behavior is from the original BSD, not FreeBSD specific). You can show this by having a static default route pointing to an address on an Ethernet interface which has link. And then pulling the TP cable from the Ethernet interface. Observe that the default route is automatically removed. My claim is that this behavior is reasonable *but* I'd like the route restored when the link comes back up again. This is standard Cisco / Juniper behavior - but *not* standard FreeBSD behavior. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: How to bind a route to a network adapter and not IP
Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > On Friday 15 June 2012 19:02:27 animelo...@gmail.com wrote: >> Perhaps you can ask the very same question in another way so its easier >> to understand why you losing packets? All in all I always thought TCP/IP >> was the basic unit in Internet based networking but feel free to correct >> me if you have any news I might have missed... :) >> >> Also do you have any idea why AMD based CPUs could be vulnerable to this >> alternative networking scheme and cause a remote denial service in fbsd >> stable but not in CURRENT? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Etienne > > Hi, > > I loose packets because I use a WLAN adapter. Sometimes the link is down for > various reasons, and then the routes start changing for manually created > routes, and I want to prevent that. > well that is certainly not a reason for changing routes I have the feeling you are not explaining good enough what really is going on and it may help sending your configurations and an example of routes and IP addresses before and after this route change Hans -- H +55 11 4249. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: How to bind a route to a network adapter and not IP
On Friday 15 June 2012 19:02:27 animelo...@gmail.com wrote: > Perhaps you can ask the very same question in another way so its easier > to understand why you losing packets? All in all I always thought TCP/IP > was the basic unit in Internet based networking but feel free to correct > me if you have any news I might have missed... :) > > Also do you have any idea why AMD based CPUs could be vulnerable to this > alternative networking scheme and cause a remote denial service in fbsd > stable but not in CURRENT? > > Thanks, > > Etienne Hi, I loose packets because I use a WLAN adapter. Sometimes the link is down for various reasons, and then the routes start changing for manually created routes, and I want to prevent that. --HPS ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: How to bind a route to a network adapter and not IP
On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 07:54:52PM +0200, sth...@nethelp.no typed: > > Perhaps you can ask the very same question in another way so its easier > > to understand why you losing packets? All in all I always thought TCP/IP > > was the basic unit in Internet based networking but feel free to correct > > me if you have any news I might have missed... :) > > This is an old and well known problem, with no solution as of today > (unless you want to run quagga/zebra or similar). > > With Cisco and Juniper (and probably lots of other big name) routers, > if I create a static route pointing to a next hop on one interface, > and the interface goes down (e.g. Ethernet cable is unplugged), > > 1. the static route is removed from the routing table. > > But then, when the interface later comes back up > > 2. the static route is reinstalled in the routing table. > > With FreeBSD point 1 above happens, but not point 2. > > I would love to have the functionality where FreeBSD would reinstall > the route as in point 2 above. I think this is definitely the least > surprising behavior (POLA), and should happen even without running an > explicit routing system like quagga. This can be quite easily programmed with kqueue, use EVFILT_NETDEV for notices of interface up/down events and adjust the routing table accordingly. Big chance Cisco and Juniper are doing something similar. -- Ruben ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: How to bind a route to a network adapter and not IP
> Perhaps you can ask the very same question in another way so its easier > to understand why you losing packets? All in all I always thought TCP/IP > was the basic unit in Internet based networking but feel free to correct > me if you have any news I might have missed... :) This is an old and well known problem, with no solution as of today (unless you want to run quagga/zebra or similar). With Cisco and Juniper (and probably lots of other big name) routers, if I create a static route pointing to a next hop on one interface, and the interface goes down (e.g. Ethernet cable is unplugged), 1. the static route is removed from the routing table. But then, when the interface later comes back up 2. the static route is reinstalled in the routing table. With FreeBSD point 1 above happens, but not point 2. I would love to have the functionality where FreeBSD would reinstall the route as in point 2 above. I think this is definitely the least surprising behavior (POLA), and should happen even without running an explicit routing system like quagga. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sth...@nethelp.no > > On 06/15/2012 12:19 PM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Maybe there is a simple answer, but how do I bind a route to a network > > interface in 8-stable? Is that possible at all? I'm asking because the > > routes > > I add in my network setup are lost because of ARP packet drops. I.E. they > > exist for a while, but not forever like I want to. > > > > --HPS > > ___ > > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > > > > ___ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" > ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: How to bind a route to a network adapter and not IP
On 06/15/12 12:19, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: Hi, Maybe there is a simple answer, but how do I bind a route to a network interface in 8-stable? Is that possible at all? I'm asking because the routes I add in my network setup are lost because of ARP packet drops. I.E. they exist for a while, but not forever like I want to. --HPS Is route add x.x.x.x -iface em0 what you want? ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: How to bind a route to a network adapter and not IP
Perhaps you can ask the very same question in another way so its easier to understand why you losing packets? All in all I always thought TCP/IP was the basic unit in Internet based networking but feel free to correct me if you have any news I might have missed... :) Also do you have any idea why AMD based CPUs could be vulnerable to this alternative networking scheme and cause a remote denial service in fbsd stable but not in CURRENT? Thanks, Etienne On 06/15/2012 12:19 PM, Hans Petter Selasky wrote: Hi, Maybe there is a simple answer, but how do I bind a route to a network interface in 8-stable? Is that possible at all? I'm asking because the routes I add in my network setup are lost because of ARP packet drops. I.E. they exist for a while, but not forever like I want to. --HPS ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
How to bind a route to a network adapter and not IP
Hi, Maybe there is a simple answer, but how do I bind a route to a network interface in 8-stable? Is that possible at all? I'm asking because the routes I add in my network setup are lost because of ARP packet drops. I.E. they exist for a while, but not forever like I want to. --HPS ___ freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
