In Reyk's presentation he talks about this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtMxGslqGbM) @ 19:30 and describes the 'link balancer' functionality of relayd intended to do exactly what I want. It appears to work as described. In the presentation Reyk says relayd will check for upstream router availability but the conf example just pings the interface it appears. Sorry for all the babble but I am away from the location where I have 2 internet connections so I cannot test this stuff right now as I normally would.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-m...@openbsd.org [mailto:owner-m...@openbsd.org] On Behalf Of Justin Mayes Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 9:05 AM To: grazzol...@gmail.com; misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Route-to with a dynamic 'next hop' My understanding of route-to is that if the destination is not on same network as the 'route-to' interface, you need the second 'next hop' parameter. All examples I was seeing show pf.conf this way. Is that not right? I will test with just the interface name. -----Original Message----- From: Giancarlo Razzolini [mailto:grazzol...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 9, 2014 8:52 AM To: Justin Mayes; misc@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Route-to with a dynamic 'next hop' On 09-10-2014 10:16, Justin Mayes wrote: > I did notice the problem with only detecting a LAN failure and was looking at > a better monitor. If I just used plain PF rules what would I use for the > next-hop parameter to the route-to command? This IP is dynamic. > There is no next-hop. Just make your rule point to the interface. route-to (if). You can also make it route-to if. In either cases, you'd be better off using ifstated/relayd with anchors to dynamicaly change your rules, in case of link failures. Also, if possible, use snmp to query your modems/routers to determine the internet link availability. Cheers
