On Thu, 6 Jun 2002, Marko Zec wrote:
> Iasen Kostov wrote:
>
> > > You might want to take a look at Marko Zec's VIPA patches that he posted to
> > > -net a few days ago. You should be able to find it in the mailing list
> > > archives under the subject "Patch for review: source VIPA".
> > >
> > It will work only if I can arpresolv VIPA and ofcourse resolve it to the
> > right iface lladdr. In other hand we could set same lladdr on all ethernet
> > ifaces.
>
> The VIPA interface is an internal loopback, aka "virtual", as its name implies.
> Therefore it doesn't have an underlying link layer, so you can't do ARP on VIPA.
> The idea is to dynamically advertise this internal address to the outer world, so
> that in case one phy ifc would go down, the VIPA could still remain reachable via
> an alternative path/interface. To accomplish this goal you need to run a routing
> protocol - in my setup the plain old RIP 1 / routed combination worked just fine,
> although this was just an example...
>
> Marko
>
That means that VIPA does not work in my case.
This is what I found in the kernel:
/*-
* Don't add host routes for interface addresses of
* 0.0.0.0 --> 0.255.255.255 netmask 255.0.0.0. This makes it
* possible to assign several such address pairs with consistent
* results (no host route) and is required by BOOTP.
*
* XXX: This is ugly ! There should be a way for the caller to
* say that they don't want a host route.
*/
I don't need host route too not just BOOTP :) and yes there should be a
way to miss host route addition.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
