On Tue, Apr 01, 2025 at 07:47:09AM +0000, otto.cooper wrote: > > > Then all I and Peter Hansteen said stand true. Having both interfaces > > on the same subnetwork won't work easily without unnecessarily > > complicated routing "hacks". Simply move one of the sides of the > > network to a different subnet and go from there. > > It has been working for 20+ years and never had a single problem with it.
This sounds to me like the previous setup had some routing magic in place that for some reason or other does not (yet?) have an equivalent in the thing you are building now. > I need to put ix0 out of group egress, and em0 and em1 in group egress. How > do I do it? The egress group consists of interfaces that have a default route. You could try to force the issue with, for each of the interfaces you want to have default routes, add to the config file !route -n add -inet default $GATEWAY_FOR_THIS_ROUTE (assuming that $GATEWAY_FOR_THIS_ROUTE is reachable) and possibly add corresponding "!route -n delete" and so on to the ones you want to not have default route. This comes with plenty of potential for foot-shooting, of course. I would recommend taking a long hard look at whether the network design you describe is actually suited for your purpose. That said, there may well be factors in play that have not come to light here. Have fun! -- Peter N. M. Hansteen, member of the first RFC 1149 implementation team https://bsdly.blogspot.com/ https://www.bsdly.net/ https://www.nuug.no/ "Remember to set the evil bit on all malicious network traffic" delilah spamd[29949]: 85.152.224.147: disconnected after 42673 seconds.
