i do not think it is. it makes no sense to have the same network on two interface, this way, IMHO.
On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 1:25 PM, Jean-Daniel Dupas <jddu...@xooloo.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I'm trying to configure a machine with multiple interface on the same > network > (one standard interface and one carp interface). > > My problem is that if I set the default routing table to the second > interface, > the system can't find it and return "no route" for any distant address > resolution. > > The problem occurs even when using to standard iface (so carp is not > involved). > > Note that my configuration works perfectly well on OpenBSD 5.7. I did test > the > problem with 5.9 and current, and both fail. > > > Here is my configuration: > > --------------- ifconfig > lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 32768 > priority: 0 > groups: lo > inet6 ::1 prefixlen 128 > inet6 fe80::1%lo0 prefixlen 64 scopeid 0x6 > inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 > vio0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > lladdr 52:54:00:9e:b2:2b > priority: 0 > media: Ethernet autoselect > status: active > inet 10.0.1.2 netmask 0xffff0000 broadcast 10.0.255.255 > vio1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > lladdr 52:54:00:fd:df:4c > priority: 0 > media: Ethernet autoselect > status: active > inet 192.168.0.11 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 > vio2: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > lladdr 52:54:00:d0:e8:1d > priority: 0 > groups: egress > media: Ethernet autoselect > status: active > inet 192.168.0.12 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 > > > --------------- route -n show > Routing tables > > Internet: > Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Mtu Prio > Iface > default 192.168.0.1 UGS 0 46 - 8 > vio2 > 10.0/16 10.0.1.2 UC 3 26 - 4 > vio0 > 10.0.0.1 00:00:5e:00:01:01 UHLc 0 59 - 4 > vio0 > 10.0.1.2 52:54:00:9e:b2:2b UHLl 0 34 - 1 > vio0 > 10.0.1.15 52:54:00:0e:62:c7 UHLc 0 16 - 4 > vio0 > 10.0.3.10 ac:87:a3:1d:3f:9d UHLc 1 16 - 4 > vio0 > 10.0.255.255 10.0.1.2 UHb 0 0 - 1 > vio0 > 127.0.0.1 127.0.0.1 UHl 0 192 32768 1 lo0 > 192.168.0/24 192.168.0.11 UCP 1 7 - 4 > vio1 > 192.168.0/24 192.168.0.12 UCP 0 0 - 4 > vio2 > 192.168.0.1 link#2 UHLc 0 25 - 4 > vio1 > 192.168.0.11 52:54:00:fd:df:4c UHLl 0 16 - 1 > vio1 > 192.168.0.12 52:54:00:d0:e8:1d UHLl 0 3 - 1 > vio2 > 192.168.0.255 192.168.0.11 UHPb 0 0 - 1 > vio1 > 192.168.0.255 192.168.0.12 UHPb 0 0 - 1 > vio2 > > Internet6: > Destination Gateway Flags > Refs > Use Mtu Prio Iface > ::1 ::1 UHl > 0 > 0 32768 1 lo0 > fe80::1%lo0 fe80::1%lo0 UHl > 0 > 0 32768 1 lo0 > ff01::%lo0/32 ::1 UC > 0 > 1 32768 4 lo0 > ff02::%lo0/32 ::1 UC > 0 > 1 32768 4 lo0 > > > ------------------------------ ping 8.8.8.8 > PING 8.8.8.8 (8.8.8.8): 56 data bytes > ping: sendto: No route to host > ping: wrote 8.8.8.8 64 chars, ret=-1 > ping: sendto: No route to host > ping: wrote 8.8.8.8 64 chars, ret=-1 > --- 8.8.8.8 ping statistics --- > 2 packets transmitted, 0 packets received, 100.0% packet loss > [1] 81614 exit 1 ping 8.8.8.8 > > If I change the default route to vio1, it works. The problem occurs only > when > the default route is on the second interface (vio2, or carp0 in my cases). > > Can someone confirm this is a bug in the routing system ? > > Regards > Jean-Daniel. > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\
