Re: Multiple Routing Tables, FIBs, setfib(1) usage

2010-02-16 Thread Julian Elischer
Brandon Gooch wrote: Are there plans to update the documentation regarding multiple routing tables? http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/handbook/network-routing.html ___ freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman

Re: Multiple Routing Tables (FIB) + IPFW problem as (I?) expected

2009-01-21 Thread Luiz Otavio O Souza
obviously you did some other commands here.. something generated 2 million packets.. Julian, its a production enviroment, firewall was up for a few minutes. Thats the reason. I was thinking of adding a 'reroute' ipfw keyword.. kind of like 'fwd {original dest} ip from any to any' because 'fwd'

Re: Multiple Routing Tables (FIB) + IPFW problem as (I?) expected

2009-01-20 Thread Eduardo Meyer
On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 2:24 PM, Luiz Otavio O Souza wrote: >>> obviously you did some other commands here.. >>> something generated 2 million packets.. >> >> Julian, its a production enviroment, firewall was up for a few >> minutes. Thats the reason. >> >>> I was thinking of adding a 'reroute' ip

Re: Multiple Routing Tables (FIB) + IPFW problem as (I?) expected

2009-01-19 Thread Luiz Otavio O Souza
obviously you did some other commands here.. something generated 2 million packets.. Julian, its a production enviroment, firewall was up for a few minutes. Thats the reason. I was thinking of adding a 'reroute' ipfw keyword.. kind of like 'fwd {original dest} ip from any to any' because 'fwd'

Re: Multiple Routing Tables (FIB) + IPFW problem as (I?) expected

2009-01-19 Thread Eduardo Meyer
> obviously you did some other commands here.. > something generated 2 million packets.. Julian, its a production enviroment, firewall was up for a few minutes. Thats the reason. > I was thinking of adding a 'reroute' ipfw keyword.. kind of like > 'fwd {original dest} ip from any to any' > becaus

Re: Multiple Routing Tables (FIB) + IPFW problem as (I?) expected

2009-01-16 Thread Julian Elischer
Eduardo Meyer wrote: Hello, I am trying the new FIB stuff on -STABLE with IPFW, I made many tests and it did not work as I expected. Quick testing: # lynx -dump http://www.whatismyip.org 200.165.75.10 # setfib -1 lynx -dump http://www.whatismyip.org 189.52.141.2 # setfib -2 lynx -dump http:/

Re: Multiple Routing Tables (FIB) + IPFW problem as (I?) expected

2009-01-16 Thread Luiz Otavio O Souza
Hello, I am trying the new FIB stuff on -STABLE with IPFW, I made many tests and it did not work as I expected. Quick testing: # lynx -dump http://www.whatismyip.org 200.165.75.10 # setfib -1 lynx -dump http://www.whatismyip.org 189.52.141.2 # setfib -2 lynx -dump http://www.whatismyip.org 20

Re: Multiple routing tables (setfib) trouble

2008-09-23 Thread Julian Elischer
Igor R wrote: Hello! I'm using FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE (Jul 25) and I have two Internet connections. Both are ethernet based, but one requires PPTP (2) while another is direct with external IP address. Trouble is that provider (1) of connection with external address is limiting number of outgoing T

Re: Multiple routing tables (setfib) trouble

2008-09-23 Thread Julian Elischer
Igor R wrote: Hello! I'm using FreeBSD 7.0-STABLE (Jul 25) and I have two Internet connections. Both are ethernet based, but one requires PPTP (2) while another is direct with external IP address. Trouble is that provider (1) of connection with external address is limiting number of outgoing T

Re: Multiple routing tables in action...

2008-05-11 Thread Julian Elischer
Igor Sysoev wrote: On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:11:03PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: Then you can export RIB entries , say you have 5 BGP peers and you want to export 2 or 3 or all of them into the 'main' routing instance you can set up a policy to add those learned routes into the main instan

Re: Multiple routing tables in action...

2008-05-11 Thread Igor Sysoev
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 12:11:03PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > >Then you can export RIB entries , say > >you have 5 BGP peers and you want to export 2 or 3 or all of them into > >the 'main' routing instance you can set up a policy to add those learned > >routes into the main instance and v-

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-05-08 Thread Julian Elischer
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: On Tue, 6 May 2008, Julian Elischer wrote: Hi, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Julian Elischer wrote: Hi, The patch can be found at http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt.diff (or http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt6.diff for RELENG_6) or source can be taken fr

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-05-07 Thread Bjoern A. Zeeb
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Julian Elischer wrote: Hi, Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Julian Elischer wrote: Hi, The patch can be found at http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt.diff (or http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt6.diff for RELENG_6) or source can be taken from perforce at: //depot

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-05-06 Thread Julian Elischer
Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Julian Elischer wrote: Hi, The patch can be found at http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt.diff (or http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt6.diff for RELENG_6) or source can be taken from perforce at: //depot/user/julian/routing/src So after looking at the

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-05-06 Thread Bjoern A. Zeeb
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Julian Elischer wrote: Hi, The patch can be found at http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt.diff (or http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt6.diff for RELENG_6) or source can be taken from perforce at: //depot/user/julian/routing/src So after looking at the patch a bit more again

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-05-03 Thread Bjoern A. Zeeb
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Julian Elischer wrote: Hi, a kernel needs to be created with the option ROUTETABLES=N e.g. +optionsROUTETABLES=2 # max 16. 1 is back compatible. leaving this out will result in just a single routing table as per normal. the max is 16 but I hav

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-05-02 Thread Bruce M. Simpson
John Hay wrote: You don't need to go to the kernel for this sort of thing unless you specifically need to implement route policy based on which interface(s) a packet came in on. Yes I know that. But in the world of adhoc wireless mesh networking there are very few non-linux people, so the

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-05-02 Thread Bruce M. Simpson
Julian Elischer wrote: OLSR is an overlay network Nope -- the express intention was that it could be used for basic IP connectivity, for mobile devices. In OLSR, every node is a potential IP forwarder unless it explicitly advertises itself as being unwilling to forward. and any machine th

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-05-02 Thread Julian Elischer
Julian Elischer wrote: John Hay wrote: This confuses me The whole point of a FIB is to decide the *next* hop for a given input packet. So questions. 1) A packet arrives on an interface. If this interface is associated with more than one FIB, which FIB does it get given to? which ever

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-05-02 Thread Julian Elischer
John Hay wrote: This confuses me The whole point of a FIB is to decide the *next* hop for a given input packet. So questions. 1) A packet arrives on an interface. If this interface is associated with more than one FIB, which FIB does it get given to? which ever one you select, using t

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-05-02 Thread John Hay
On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 04:44:20PM +0100, Bruce M. Simpson wrote: > John Hay wrote: > >The linux guys seems to have multiple fibs (or whatever they call them) > >which they can chain together by giving them different priorities. The > >effect seems to be that a packet will be matched through the hi

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-05-02 Thread Bruce M. Simpson
John Hay wrote: The linux guys seems to have multiple fibs (or whatever they call them) which they can chain together by giving them different priorities. The effect seems to be that a packet will be matched through the highest priority fib to the lowest until a route match is found en then is us

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-05-02 Thread John Hay
> >This confuses me > > > >The whole point of a FIB is to decide the *next* hop for a > >given input packet. So questions. > >1) A packet arrives on an interface. If this interface is > > associated with more than one FIB, which FIB does it get > > given to? > > > > which ever one you sel

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-04-30 Thread Kevin Oberman
> Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 10:25:51 -0700 > From: Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Bruce M Simpson wrote: > > Julian Elischer wrote: > >> An interface may however be present in entries from multiple FIBs > >> in which case the INCOMING packets on that interface need to > >> be disambiguated w

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-04-30 Thread Bakul Shah
On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:56:07 BST "Bruce M. Simpson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2) If that decision is taken by a a packet 'classifier', > >isn't it in effect doing the job of a FIB (deciding the > >next hop, which happens to be a local FIB)? Recall that > >basically a packet passe

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-04-30 Thread Julian Elischer
Bruce M Simpson wrote: Julian Elischer wrote: what's SSM? Source-specific multicast, where multicast flows (channels) are identified by both their original source address, and group address. Multicast addresses have no meaning on their own beyond the scope of a single link. I haven't ch

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-04-30 Thread Julian Elischer
Bruce M. Simpson wrote: Bakul Shah wrote: 1) A packet arrives on an interface. If this interface is associated with more than one FIB, which FIB does it get given to? If you only have a single FIB, there is no issue here. If you have multiple FIBs, the decision gets made by the class

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-04-30 Thread Julian Elischer
Bakul Shah wrote: On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:42:03 PDT Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Interfaces are not however assigned to FIB instance. each FIB may contain entries for each interface, and by default they do, but you can delete teh entries associated with a particular interface from

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-04-30 Thread Bruce M Simpson
Julian Elischer wrote: what's SSM? Source-specific multicast, where multicast flows (channels) are identified by both their original source address, and group address. Multicast addresses have no meaning on their own beyond the scope of a single link. I haven't changed any of that.. Basi

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-04-30 Thread Bruce M. Simpson
Bruce M. Simpson wrote: Wouldn't it make sense to treat each alias as on a separate logical interface? Then each logical interface belongs to exactly one FIB. On input you decide which logical inteface a packet arrived on by looking at its destination MAC address. That reduces confusion quite

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-04-30 Thread Bruce M. Simpson
Bakul Shah wrote: 1) A packet arrives on an interface. If this interface is associated with more than one FIB, which FIB does it get given to? If you only have a single FIB, there is no issue here. If you have multiple FIBs, the decision gets made by the classifier. 2) If that decis

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-04-30 Thread Bakul Shah
On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 13:42:03 PDT Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Interfaces are not however assigned to FIB instance. each FIB may > contain entries for each interface, and by default they do, but you > can delete teh entries associated with a particular interface from > a particu

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-04-30 Thread Julian Elischer
Bruce M Simpson wrote: Julian Elischer wrote: An interface may however be present in entries from multiple FIBs in which case the INCOMING packets on that interface need to be disambiguated with respect to which FIB they belong to. Yes, there is no way the forwarding code alone can do this. I

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-04-30 Thread Kevin Oberman
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 12:17:15 -0700 > From: Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Kevin Oberman wrote: > >> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:44:18 -0700 > >> From: Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> > >> The patch can be found at > >>

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-04-30 Thread Kevin Oberman
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:44:18 -0700 > From: Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > The patch can be found at > http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt.diff > (or http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt6.diff for RELENG_6) > > or source can be taken from perforce at: >

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-04-30 Thread Bruce M Simpson
Julian Elischer wrote: An interface may however be present in entries from multiple FIBs in which case the INCOMING packets on that interface need to be disambiguated with respect to which FIB they belong to. Yes, there is no way the forwarding code alone can do this. It should not be expected

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-04-29 Thread Julian Elischer
Bruce M. Simpson wrote: Julian Elischer wrote: A general purpose OS is a different beast as it has no physical equivalent of the FIB. It may have multiple routing tables, though, to I think setrib would be a term less likely to cause confusion then setfib even though, in the case of your FreeBS

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-04-29 Thread Bruce M. Simpson
Julian Elischer wrote: A general purpose OS is a different beast as it has no physical equivalent of the FIB. It may have multiple routing tables, though, to I think setrib would be a term less likely to cause confusion then setfib even though, in the case of your FreeBSD patches, it's really bo

Re: Multiple routing tables in action...

2008-04-29 Thread Bruce M. Simpson
Julian Elischer wrote: The interaction with routing daemons is something I don't know enough about. I need someone who knows routing daemons to tell how to correctly tweek code that sends routing events. As long as it doesn't break anything... I think it is possible that events from a partic

Re: multiple routing tables review patch ready for simple testing.

2008-04-29 Thread Julian Elischer
Kevin Oberman wrote: Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:44:18 -0700 From: Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The patch can be found at http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt.diff (or http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt6.diff for RELENG_6) or source can be taken from perforce at

Re: Multiple routing tables in action...

2008-04-29 Thread Julian Elischer
-net added to broaden the conversation Paul wrote: The routing daemons run linked separate instances and create their own RIB. Take a look at Cisco's VRF implementation. You can even have interfaces assigned to the other routing instance so you could have em0.001 on routing instance 1 and e

Re: Multiple routing tables in action...

2008-04-29 Thread Julian Elischer
Max Laier wrote: On Tuesday 29 April 2008 20:19:14 Julian Elischer wrote: Paul wrote: I've been waiting for something like this. Linux has done policy routing for many many years and is very good at it. I prefer to use FreeBSD for routing though and this is a feature I have been waiting for :

Re: Multiple routing tables in action...

2008-04-29 Thread Max Laier
On Tuesday 29 April 2008 20:19:14 Julian Elischer wrote: > Paul wrote: > > I've been waiting for something like this. Linux has done policy > > routing for many many years and is very good at it. I prefer to use > > FreeBSD for routing though and this is a feature I have been waiting > > for :) M

Re: Multiple routing tables in action...

2008-04-29 Thread Julian Elischer
Paul wrote: I've been waiting for something like this. Linux has done policy routing for many many years and is very good at it. I prefer to use FreeBSD for routing though and this is a feature I have been waiting for :) Mainly to use with BGP , having multiple BGP routing tables. I would l

Re: Multiple routing tables in action...

2008-04-29 Thread Paul
I've been waiting for something like this. Linux has done policy routing for many many years and is very good at it. I prefer to use FreeBSD for routing though and this is a feature I have been waiting for :) Mainly to use with BGP , having multiple BGP routing tables. I would like it to be

Re: Multiple routing tables in action...

2008-04-29 Thread Julian Elischer
Wilkinson, Alex wrote: 0n Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 08:44:30AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: >A little progress report >From a recently installed (6.3) machine (plus patches) Ok, being ignorant to this, possibly a silly question: Why would i want or need multiple routing tables ?

Re: Multiple routing tables in action...

2008-04-26 Thread Julian Elischer
Martes G Wigglesworth wrote: Sorry for my late entry into this interesting subject, however, what exactly was the original post displaying? I have 6.3-Stable running, and I don't even have the first command listed as "setfib", on my system. What did the setfib -l command do, so that you were ab

Re: Multiple routing tables in action...

2008-04-26 Thread Martes G Wigglesworth
Sorry for my late entry into this interesting subject, however, what exactly was the original post displaying? I have 6.3-Stable running, and I don't even have the first command listed as "setfib", on my system. What did the setfib -l command do, so that you were able to see two distinctly differ

Re: Multiple routing tables in action...

2008-04-26 Thread Julian Elischer
Ivo Vachkov wrote: when do we get to see those patches ? :) for -current: http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt.diff for releng_6: http://www.freebsd.org/~julian/mrt6.diff On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: A little progress report From a recently ins

Re: Multiple routing tables in action...

2008-04-26 Thread Ivo Vachkov
when do we get to see those patches ? :) On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 6:44 PM, Julian Elischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A little progress report > > From a recently installed (6.3) machine (plus patches) > > wsa02:julian 9] setfib -0 netstat -rn > Routing tables > > Internet: > Destination

Re: Multiple routing tables

2008-02-29 Thread Julian Elischer
Jeremie Le Hen wrote: Julian, On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:00:01AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: IPV6 in vimage is suported I believe.. (super jails) bz@ replied in another thread that the feature is coming forth. What about your multiple routing tables patch? ISTR you said it would be prett

Re: Multiple routing tables (was: IPv6 in Jail)

2008-02-29 Thread Jeremie Le Hen
Julian, On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 10:00:01AM -0800, Julian Elischer wrote: > IPV6 in vimage is suported I believe.. (super jails) bz@ replied in another thread that the feature is coming forth. What about your multiple routing tables patch? ISTR you said it would be pretty orthogonal to vimages

Re: multiple routing tables

2006-03-21 Thread Ragnar Lonn
Andre Oppermann wrote: Why do you need two routing tables? Do you run different routing daemons in the jails? Do you have different default gateways for the jails? Just trying to understand your requirements and usage of this feature. Well, I can tell you about our requirements, if you'r

Re: multiple routing tables

2006-03-21 Thread Milan Obuch
On Tuesday 21 March 2006 10:22, Ragnar Lonn wrote: > Julian Elischer wrote: > > I'm looking at a problem where I want onemachine to really look like 2. > > this means I want to have 2 separate routing tables if possible. > > > > I know I could do it with eas if I could user Marco Zec's vimage patch

Re: multiple routing tables

2006-03-21 Thread Ragnar Lonn
Julian Elischer wrote: I'm looking at a problem where I want onemachine to really look like 2. this means I want to have 2 separate routing tables if possible. I know I could do it with eas if I could user Marco Zec's vimage patches but I need to have a path forward to 6.x and beyond An answer

Re: multiple routing tables

2006-03-20 Thread Andre Oppermann
Julian Elischer wrote: > > I'm looking at a problem where I want onemachine to really look like 2. > this means I want to have 2 separate routing tables if possible. > > I know I could do it with eas if I could user Marco Zec's vimage patches > but I need to have a path forward to 6.x and beyond

Re: multiple routing tables

2006-03-19 Thread Ray Mihm
Marco's Zec's work IHMO is pretty good to be ignored. It can be adopted to 6.x pretty easily. I think having this in the base system along with jails makes it even more sweater and makes us a step ahead of zones (as in OpenSolaris). I understand it's an overkill for your requirements, but it's the

Re: multiple routing tables?

2003-07-03 Thread Marco Molteni
Patrick Verkaik wrote [2003-07-02]: > > Does FreeBSD support multiple routing tables? If not, is any work being > done in this area? From what I can find, it seems that Linux has this. > > The reason I'm asking is that I'd like to simulate a number of BGP routers > on one box. At the 2nd Europe

Re: multiple routing tables?

2003-07-02 Thread Brooks Davis
On Wed, Jul 02, 2003 at 01:11:01PM -0700, Patrick Verkaik wrote: > > Does FreeBSD support multiple routing tables? If not, is any work being > done in this area? From what I can find, it seems that Linux has this. > > The reason I'm asking is that I'd like to simulate a number of BGP routers > o