On 7/19/05, Roy Morris wrote: > > sorry, I must be reading this wrong or not understanding. Why > would you not just put in a static arp entry? Is there ever a > time when you don't want traffic to take this route?
No, I want all traffic to take this route. There are several imaginable solutions: 1. Fix network setup by splitting the network segment 192.168.1.0/24 into subnets. This is the cleanest solution. But this might not be an option: One might not have control over all affected servers. Or the network space might be exhausted. (In the real setup we we have a smaller network of public addresses.) 2. Add a static proxy arp entry for 192.168.1.2 on the gateway host 192.168.1.3. This works and is the solution I chose for now. But somehow using hardware-addresses when I could fix it with IP addresses gives me a slightly bad feeling of doing something wrong conceptually. The advantage of this solution is that the gateway host is the only host that needs special treatment. 3. Add a static host route for 192.168.1.2 via gateway 192.168.1.3. This has the advantage of omitting hardware addresses and the disadvantage of having to add routes on all servers in the network segment 192.168.1.0/24 that want to talk to 192.168.1.2. And then, I can not alter an already set arp route into a static gateway route without first deleting it, which was the problem described in my original mail. 4. Add a static arp entry for 192.168.1.2 with the MAC address of the gateway host 192.168.1.3 on the BSD box in question. This is possible but somehow the wrong place. It combines the disadvantages of solutions 2 and 3. I have to check whether it is possible to change an incomplete or automatic arp entry into a static one without deleting or if the same problem as with the static host route occurs here. There are several solutions for the problem, but I would like to at least have the option to use solution 3 reliably since it might (in some other setup) not be in my power to use solutions 1 or 2. Michael
