> 18 июля 2015 г., в 1:34, Giancarlo Razzolini
> написал(а):
>
> Em 17-07-2015 17:38, lausg...@gmail.com escreveu:
>> Thanks much for all your good help! I will try it.
>
> No problem.
>
>> For now I'm just still using probabilistic rules with quick keyword +
>> fallback rule but using mpath
Em 17-07-2015 17:38, lausg...@gmail.com escreveu:
Thanks much for all your good help! I will try it.
No problem.
For now I'm just still using probabilistic rules with quick keyword + fallback
rule but using mpath instead of rdomain and this works smoothly now!
If I recall correctly, you co
27;t know other way of dynamic passing of gateways from dhclient to
>> pf for this rule without usage of multiple tables.
> As I mentioned, I would use least-states, instead of round-robin. Also, I had
> a similar issue and solved it using (egress). Since your interfaces will have
>
ue and solved it using (egress). Since your
interfaces will have default routes, they will be all part of the egress
group. You can exploit that. Use tags and tcpdump to debug your rules, I
believe you can find a solution.
Cheers,
Giancarlo Razzolini
path? Also not sure whether it will work in this
>> case:http://www.rinta-aho.org/blog/?p=214
> I don't recall if the openbsd base dhclient have it, but you could possibly
> use some that is on ports and make it not add the default routes. And, you
> could make it call a scri
ecall if the openbsd base dhclient have it, but you could
possibly use some that is on ports and make it not add the default
routes. And, you could make it call a script that creates them. They
need to be created with the -mpath modifier anyway.
Cheers,
Giancarlo Razzolini
> Giancarlo Razzolini :
>
> Em 08-07-2015 15:05, lausg...@gmail.com escreveu:
>> My isp gives me a bunch of dynamic external ip addresses via dhcp one per
>> nic. They don't share common default gateway route all together, so I'm
>> forced to put each next in its own rdomain.
>>
>> As so, http:
Em 08-07-2015 15:05, lausg...@gmail.com escreveu:
My isp gives me a bunch of dynamic external ip addresses via dhcp one per nic.
They don't share common default gateway route all together, so I'm forced to
put each next in its own rdomain.
As so, http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/pools.html#nat or
I've added "quick" word to the probabilistic rules and it works better, but
still not sure how to deal with vether.
Исходное сообщение
От: lausg...@gmail.com
Отправлено: среда, 8 июля 2015 г., 21:05
Кому: misc@openbsd.org
Тема: nat on addresses with different default routes
My isp gives me a bunch of dynamic external ip addresses via dhcp one per nic.
They don't share common default gateway route all together, so I'm forced to
put each next in its own rdomain.
As so, http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/pools.html#nat or
http://www.openbsd.org/faq/pf/pools.html#outgoing
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 05:05:28PM +0100, Mathieu BLANC wrote:
> Hello !
>
> I have an OSPF setup with 4 routers :
>
> INTERNET
> ||
> C1 C2
> ||
> O1 O2
> ||
> NE1 NE2
>
> C1 and C2 are Cisco Routers, O1 and O2 OpenBSD.
> OSPF is used between C1/C2/O1/O2
> NE1 is the network ma
Hello !
I have an OSPF setup with 4 routers :
INTERNET
||
C1 C2
||
O1 O2
||
NE1 NE2
C1 and C2 are Cisco Routers, O1 and O2 OpenBSD.
OSPF is used between C1/C2/O1/O2
NE1 is the network managed by O1, NE2 the network managed by O2.
C1 and C2 distribute a default route to O1/O2 (s
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2009-05-07, carlopmart wrote:
Matthew Dempsky wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:47 PM, carlopmart wrote:
Which is that sysctl param Stuart??
net.inet.ip.multipath
See http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html#Multipath
I have setup this param previously ... And I think
hi,
MTU on ethernet vlan interfaces are also 1500. the vlan tag overhead is
handled by the switch and NIC. you do not have to care about that.
run tcpdump on all interfaces and look for the ospf hello packets... and can
you please post the logs... ? you'r not getting any neighbors with "ospfctl
On 2009-05-07, carlopmart wrote:
> Matthew Dempsky wrote:
>> On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:47 PM, carlopmart wrote:
>>> Which is that sysctl param Stuart??
>>
>> net.inet.ip.multipath
>>
>> See http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html#Multipath
>>
> I have setup this param previously ... And I think I
Matthew Dempsky wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:47 PM, carlopmart wrote:
Which is that sysctl param Stuart??
net.inet.ip.multipath
See http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html#Multipath
I have setup this param previously ... And I think I have found the problem. I
am using vlan on this OpenBSD
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 1:47 PM, carlopmart wrote:
> Which is that sysctl param Stuart??
net.inet.ip.multipath
See http://www.openbsd.org/faq/faq6.html#Multipath
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2009-05-07, carlopmart wrote:
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2009-05-07, carlopmart wrote:
Hi all,
I am trying to establish default routes on an openbsd firewall using ospfd
instead of use multipath+route to param under pf.conf without luck.
My topology is
On 2009-05-07, carlopmart wrote:
> Stuart Henderson wrote:
>> On 2009-05-07, carlopmart wrote:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I am trying to establish default routes on an openbsd firewall using
>>> ospfd
>>> instead of use multipath+route to para
n on pf.conf does. But reading more
accurately about using OSPF I think that ospf only provides active/passive
default routes. Am I correct???
On Thu, May 7, 2009 at 3:40 PM, carlopmart wrote:
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2009-05-07, carlopmart wrote:
Hi all,
I am trying to establis
art Henderson wrote:
>
>> On 2009-05-07, carlopmart wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I am trying to establish default routes on an openbsd firewall using
>>> ospfd instead of use multipath+route to param
Stuart Henderson wrote:
On 2009-05-07, carlopmart wrote:
Hi all,
I am trying to establish default routes on an openbsd firewall using ospfd
instead of use multipath+route to param under pf.conf without luck.
My topology is:
Internet --- ExtFw1
On 2009-05-07, carlopmart wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am trying to establish default routes on an openbsd firewall using ospfd
> instead of use multipath+route to param under pf.conf without luck.
>
> My topology is:
>
>
carlopmart wrote:
Hi all,
I am trying to establish default routes on an openbsd firewall using
ospfd instead of use multipath+route to param under pf.conf without luck.
My topology is:
Internet --- ExtFw1
Hi all,
I am trying to establish default routes on an openbsd firewall using ospfd
instead of use multipath+route to param under pf.conf without luck.
My topology is:
Internet --- ExtFw1
On 2008-05-16, Charlie Allom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am trying to setup an active/active routing firewall setup with OSPF
> so it load shares the traffic equally.
>
> I am have created a test lab with IOS ASBR's that have
> `default-information originate always` so I then can see 2 r
Hi,
I am trying to setup an active/active routing firewall setup with OSPF
so it load shares the traffic equally.
I am have created a test lab with IOS ASBR's that have
`default-information originate always` so I then can see 2 routes to
0.0.0.0/0.0.0.0 via 2 routes.
It seems there is a limitati
On Mon, Apr 23, 2007 at 09:56:56PM -0700, Bray Mailloux wrote:
> I'm setting up an OpenBSD box and need some advice on what my setup should
> reflect.
>
> I have static ip address, specifically 64.142.102.8 which is going to be
> used as a primary internet connection for my home network. There
I'm setting up an OpenBSD box and need some advice on what my setup
should reflect.
I have static ip address, specifically 64.142.102.8 which is going to be
used as a primary internet connection for my home network. There are
three ethernet cards in my box; rl0 will be the external card, rl1 w
--- Quoting Gilles Chehade on 2007/04/18 at 22:23 +0200:
> Hi misc@,
>
> I am trying to setup a set of "carp"-ed firewalls as follow:
>
>
>
> ISP 1 ISP 2
> | |
>\ /
> _ SWITCH # 1 _
>
Hi misc@,
I am trying to setup a set of "carp"-ed firewalls as follow:
ISP 1 ISP 2
| |
\ /
_ SWITCH # 1 _
/ || \
/ || \
bge
31 matches
Mail list logo
