If you want a stupid hack that I believe will work, do
ifconfig fxp0 1.1.1.1
instead of downing it. That will delete the default route, as the
address will not be reachable.
You can then bring up fxp1 and add back the default route, which should
be reachable through it.
--
Barney Wolff
I never
Mikko Hyvarinen wrote:
>>could someone with more knowledge of the tun device please take a look
>>at the code around line 387 in net/if_tun.c? It looks like tunoutput()
>>drops all packets here that aren't of the AF_INET family - most notably,
>>it drops IPv6 packets.
>>
>>We hacked around this
On Tue, May 14, 2002 at 04:50:24PM -0700, Lars Eggert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> could someone with more knowledge of the tun device please take a look
> at the code around line 387 in net/if_tun.c? It looks like tunoutput()
> drops all packets here that aren't of the AF_INET family - most notably,
> it
I've been comparing simple ns drop experiments with FreeBSD. Based on
your explanation (below), I've accounted for one difference and switched
to FreeBSD 4.5.
I'm seeing another discrepancy and would like to verify that it is
intended behavior. Though this is related to my original questioni
On Wed, May 15, 2002 at 01:45:47AM -0700, Anshuman Kanwar wrote:
> # Bring failed interface down
> ifconfig $old_intf down
why not move the route delete default here rather than later?
> # Delete old route
> route delete default
>
> # Clear ARP cache
> arp -a -d
>
> # Fail Ove
The following email address, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" has been removed from the Verba
Volant Newsletter list.
If you did not cancel your email address or you wish to continue receiving Verba
Volant, please send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thank you and best regards,
Verba Volant
To Unsubscribe
Summary:
The -ifp option in route add default does not seem to have any effect, and
it is impossible to set a default route in certain conditions.
Is there a work around for route in 4.4 ?
Details
I have 2 interfaces (fxp0 and 1) on my FreeBSD box. Initially only one of
the i
