On Mon, 2 Jul 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 03:15:56PM -0600, Wes Peters wrote:
> > Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> > >
> > > BTW, Wes, I'm still waiting for a working example of an indirect route
> > > with also indirect gateway.
> >
> > Any indirect route via the opposite end of a point-to-point connection.
> > Right?
> >
> You probably meant that the gateway is accessible via the opposite end.
>
> But the gateway value on a P2P link is a no-op. Whatever gateway you
> specify, the actual gateway is always the "opposite end". Here, the
> gateway only helps the routing code to select the right interface.
> I.e., on a 1.1.1.1 -> 2.2.2.2 configured tun0 interface, the following
> two commands are equivalent:
>
> route add -net 10 2.2.2.2
> route add -net 10 -iface tun0
>
> Funny though that you're giving this example, as it only works starting
> with revision 1.62 (from June 4, 2001) of sys/net/route.c. Before this,
> routing code incorrectly set up the interface based on destination, not
> the gateway:
>
> # ifconfig tun0
> tun0: flags=8051<UP,POINTOPOINT,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
> inet 1.1.1.1 --> 2.2.2.2 netmask 0xff000000
>
> # netstat -rn
> Routing tables
>
> Internet:
> Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Netif Expire
> default 192.168.4.65 UGSc 1 0 rl0
> 2.2.2.2 1.1.1.1 UH 0 0 tun0
> 3.3.3.3 tun0 UHS 1 0 tun0
> 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UH 1 6 lo0
> 192.168.4 link#1 UC 3 0 rl0 =>
> 192.168.4.65 0:d0:b7:16:9c:c6 UHLW 2 1576 rl0 899
> 192.168.4.115 0:c0:df:3:2d:79 UHLW 2 2 lo0
>
> # route add -net 10 3.3.3.3
> add net 10: gateway 3.3.3.3
>
> # netstat -rn | grep 3.3.3.3
> 3.3.3.3 tun0 UHS 1 0 tun0
> 10 3.3.3.3 UGSc 0 0 rl0
> ^^^^ oops
>
> I still think we should disallow such routes on non-P2P interfaces, at
> least. What do you think?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Ruslan Ermilov Oracle Developer/DBA,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sunbay Software AG,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD committer,
> +380.652.512.251 Simferopol, Ukraine
>
> http://www.FreeBSD.org The Power To Serve
> http://www.oracle.com Enabling The Information Age
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
>
If you speek about disallowing routes like : route add -net 10 3.3.3.3
I don't think we should. I'm using such routes now (ethernet bridges for
leased lines) and don't want to loose this functionality.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
