On Feb 21, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Wes Peters wrote:
As much as anything I just object to the semantic dissonance in
"multiple" "default". Think about it.
I still haven't decided what it means at the packet level to have
multiple default routes. Does that mean that, not having found a
"bett
On 22/02/2008, Wes Peters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As much as anything I just object to the semantic dissonance in
> "multiple" "default". Think about it.
>
> I still haven't decided what it means at the packet level to have
> multiple default routes. Does that mean that, not having found
On Feb 20, 2008, at 1:54 PM, Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Wes Peters wrote:
I see a number of people have replied to this message offering
solutions of how to accomplish your migration, using a variety of
tools available to you in FreeBSD. I've always found this
community very supportive in th
Wes Peters wrote:
I see a number of people have replied to this message offering
solutions of how to accomplish your migration, using a variety of
tools available to you in FreeBSD. I've always found this community
very supportive in this fashion, and I'm glad they've jumped in to
help you in
At 18 Feb 2008 21:55:50 +, Nick Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
At 2008-02-18 21:36:18+, Bill Moran writes:
In response to Nick Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I have a multi-home host: more than one IP address. The addresses
are
in separate subnets but run over the same etherne
Bruce M. Simpson wrote:
Tom Judge wrote:
However FreeBSD's routing table does not currently support policy
routing without some help from the firewall. The only way to achieve
your goal is to use one of the firewalls (pf/ipfw/ipf) to do the
policy routing for you.
If anyone wants to take
Tom Judge wrote:
However FreeBSD's routing table does not currently support policy
routing without some help from the firewall. The only way to achieve
your goal is to use one of the firewalls (pf/ipfw/ipf) to do the
policy routing for you.
If anyone wants to take this on, start looking at
Nick Barnes wrote:
I want packets from address A1 to be sent via gateway G1, but packets
from address A2 to be sent via gateway G2.
How do I do this? Can I just have more than one default route? I'm
remote from the machine in question, so I don't want to tinker with
the default route until I'm
Eygene Ryabinkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the education! I have only one question: what it 'Yugo'?
> I had not found it in nearby dictionaries ;))
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yugo
--
Bill Moran
Collaborative Fusion Inc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone: 412-422-3463x4023
Bill,
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 05:54:33PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
> > > I can be done with CARP
> > > if both providers support it and are willing to work together.
> >
> > Very, very unlikely for me ;))
>
> Overall, Eygene, you're tryi
Nick Barnes wrote:
At 2008-02-18 22:12:48+, Julian Elischer writes:
Unless you actually want all your machines to be remotely
accessible from the outside, you should probably just turn on
NAT on the new ISP interface, turn off the old one, and be
done with it.
The machines I'm interested
In response to Eygene Ryabinkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 05:06:42PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
> > > I had faced such situation once: I had multihomed host that was
> > > running Apache daemon that was announced via two DNS names that
> > > were corresponding to two different IPs,
In response to Tom Judge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Bill Moran wrote:
> > In response to Eygene Ryabinkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> >> Bill,
> >>
> >> Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:36:18PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
> >>> I would suggest you ask yourself (and possibly the list) _why_ you think
> >>> multipl
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 05:06:42PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
> > I had faced such situation once: I had multihomed host that was
> > running Apache daemon that was announced via two DNS names that
> > were corresponding to two different IPs, going via two different
> > providers. When the first provid
At 2008-02-18 22:12:48+, Julian Elischer writes:
> Unless you actually want all your machines to be remotely
> accessible from the outside, you should probably just turn on
> NAT on the new ISP interface, turn off the old one, and be
> done with it.
The machines I'm interested in for these pu
Bill Moran wrote:
In response to Eygene Ryabinkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Bill,
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:36:18PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
I would suggest you ask yourself (and possibly the list) _why_ you think
multiple default routes is necessary ... what is it that you're hoping
to accomplish.
Nick Barnes wrote:
At 2008-02-18 21:36:18+, Bill Moran writes:
In response to Nick Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I have a multi-home host: more than one IP address. The addresses are
in separate subnets but run over the same ethernet segment (this is a
temporary situation while I switch an
In response to Eygene Ryabinkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Bill,
>
> Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:36:18PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
> > I would suggest you ask yourself (and possibly the list) _why_ you think
> > multiple default routes is necessary ... what is it that you're hoping
> > to accomplish. I'm
Nick Barnes wrote:
I have a multi-home host: more than one IP address. The addresses are
in separate subnets but run over the same ethernet segment (this is a
temporary situation while I switch an office network over from one
network provider to another).
I want packets from address A1 to be se
Nick Barnes wrote:
At 2008-02-18 21:36:18+, Bill Moran writes:
I would rather send packets from the P2 subnet addresses to the P2
router, while the packets from the P1 subnet addresses keep going to
the P1 router.
Apparently I can do this with some IPFW cunning, but that seems like
overk
At 2008-02-18 21:36:18+, Bill Moran writes:
> In response to Nick Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I have a multi-home host: more than one IP address. The addresses are
> > in separate subnets but run over the same ethernet segment (this is a
> > temporary situation while I switch an office
Bill,
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:36:18PM -0500, Bill Moran wrote:
> I would suggest you ask yourself (and possibly the list) _why_ you think
> multiple default routes is necessary ... what is it that you're hoping
> to accomplish. I'm guessing your looking for some sort of redundancy,
> in which cas
On Feb 18, 2008, at 3:00 PM, Nick Barnes wrote:
I have a multi-home host: more than one IP address. The addresses are
in separate subnets but run over the same ethernet segment (this is a
temporary situation while I switch an office network over from one
network provider to another).
I want p
Nick, good day.
Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:00:54PM +, Nick Barnes wrote:
> I have a multi-home host: more than one IP address. The addresses are
> in separate subnets but run over the same ethernet segment (this is a
> temporary situation while I switch an office network over from one
> network
In response to Nick Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I have a multi-home host: more than one IP address. The addresses are
> in separate subnets but run over the same ethernet segment (this is a
> temporary situation while I switch an office network over from one
> network provider to another).
>
>
25 matches
Mail list logo
