At 07:42 PM 2/12/2010, Luiz Otavio O Souza wrote:
The "-S" tries to remove the entry first, but it fails because it
doesn't exist.
As far as I can tell, the -S option doesn't cause the command to
fail if no routing table entry already exists. It just deletes any
route that does exist.
Also
Brett,
Change the "-S" to "-s" in the following line:
if (ExecCmdNosh(LG_IFACE2, b->name,
"%s -S %s %x:%x:%x:%x:%x:%x pub",
PATH_ARP, u_addrtoa(&iface->peer_addr,hisaddr,sizeof(hisaddr)),
The "-S" tries to remove the entry first, but it fails because it doe
Okay, well, I need to pack. So will get back to it in a week.
-- Qing
-Original Message-
From: Brett Glass [mailto:br...@lariat.net]
Sent: Fri 2/12/2010 6:22 PM
To: Li, Qing
Cc: n...@freebsd.org; Li, Qing; Luiz Otavio O Souza
Subject: RE: Routing problems on VPN servers running FreeBSD
O Souza
Subject: RE: Routing problems on VPN servers running FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE
P.S. -- It occurs to me that perhaps adding the word "only" at the
end of the command string used by mpd 5.3 might help. Should I try this?
___
freebsd-net@free
P.S. -- It occurs to me that perhaps adding the word "only" at the
end of the command string used by mpd 5.3 might help. Should I try this?
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, s
This patch seems to have had a positive effect on ppp(8)/PoPToP,
though more testing is needed. However, It appears that mpd uses
arp(8) rather than the socket interface to set up proxy ARP. Here's
the code (from the file iface.c in mpd 5.3):
if (Enabled(&iface->options, IFACE_CONF_PROXY))
At 07:03 PM 2/12/2010, Li, Qing wrote:
Luiz Otavio and I have been discussing offline about an issue with
the file /usr.sbin/ppp/arp.c in the past week or so. The ARP related
code in arp.c was missing a flag bit called "RTF_LLDATA".
What about mpd?
--Brett
___
>
> It'd be good to resolve this as soon as possible, because I have
> two clients who need servers installed this weekend. (They wanted
> them last week, but I was trapped away from the office by a
snowstorm.)
>
Luiz Otavio and I have been discussing offline about an issue with
the file /usr.sb
At 05:28 PM 2/12/2010, Li, Qing wrote:
Okay.
I will be on a business trip for a week staring tomorrow. I'd be
more than happy
to work with you offline right after I get back, that's if you can
wait and no one else has picked this issue up.
It'd be good to resolve this as soon as possible, b
reebsd.org , and whatever other pieces of information you are
willing to share.
Thanks,
-- Qing
From: Brett Glass [mailto:br...@lariat.net]
Sent: Fri 2/12/2010 4:04 PM
To: Li, Qing
Cc: n...@freebsd.org
Subject: RE: Routing problems on VPN servers running F
Qing:
On my test system, the file /usr/src/sys/netinet/in.c contains the
following tag:
__FBSDID("$FreeBSD: src/sys/netinet/in.c,v 1.143.2.13 2010/02/09
19:27:54 qingli Exp $");
The date above matches the date of revision 203718, which is 3 days old.
--Brett
At 04:26 PM 2/12/2010, Li, Qin
org/viewvc/base/stable/8/sys/netinet/in.c?view=log
Then please report back the result of your verification.
--Qing
From: Brett Glass [mailto:br...@lariat.net]
Sent: Fri 2/12/2010 2:39 PM
To: David Horn
Cc: Li, Qing; n...@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Routing problems
At 03:09 PM 2/12/2010, David Horn wrote:
If you have not already, make certain you use the appropriate tag of
"RELENG_8", and not "RELENG_8_0"
Yup, that's what I did. I used /usr/share/examples/stable-supfile
with only one mod: I explicitly inserted the name of the mirror
into the file rathe
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 4:32 PM, Brett Glass wrote:
> Qing:
>
> Last night, I updated an 8.0-RELEASE test machine to 8.0-RELENG using csup,
If you have not already, make certain you use the appropriate tag of
"RELENG_8", and not "RELENG_8_0" as per:
http://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/cvs-tags.ht
Qing:
Last night, I updated an 8.0-RELEASE test machine to 8.0-RELENG
using csup, and then rebuilt the world and the kernel. I then
tested both ppp(8) (with PoPTop) and mpd 5.3 on the machine. (I did
not recompile mpd, but ppp(8) was of course recompiled when I
rebuilt the world.)
Proxy ARP
and see if the latest
patches resolve your problems before we carry on with the
"merge into 8-release" or other alternatives discussion ?
-- Qing
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 22:41:38 -0700
From: Brett Glass
To:"Li, Qing" ,
Subject: RE: Routing problems on
ing" ,
Subject: RE: Routing problems on VPN servers running FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE
Message-ID: <201002050541.waa04...@lariat.net>
In-Reply-To:
Qing:
What about the possibility of going to 7.3-RELEASE? There is a lot
that is good about 8.x, but when I build a production system I
pr
Qing:
What about the possibility of going to 7.3-RELEASE? There is a lot
that is good about 8.x, but when I build a production system I
prefer to use a release that will have extended support. After all,
it's awkward to build a production server that will need to be
taken down for a major upg
>
> Not since the ARP table and the routing table have been split.
> However, the addresses for which the machine is doing proxy ARP do
> need to show up there, and they do not.
>
You described a bug symptom that should have been fixed.
The proxy ARP entry should be displayed in the ARP table
a
At 02:35 AM 2/3/2010, Li, Qing wrote:
Proxy ARP entries are not installed into the routing table.
Not since the ARP table and the routing table have been split.
However, the addresses for which the machine is doing proxy ARP do
need to show up there, and they do not.
I believe I have fixe
>
> The problems seem to be that (a) proxy ARP doesn't get set
> up in either the ARP table or the routing table, and
>
Proxy ARP entries are not installed into the routing table.
I believe I have fixed this issue in svn r201282 and merged
into 8-STABLE
http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base?view=
Qing:
Unfortunately, I am heading to Washington DC tomorrow to speak with
the FCC and ask it not to regulate ISPs out of business. But when I
return, I will certainly test it and help you fix whatever is still
broken. The problems seem to be that (a) proxy ARP doesn't get set
up in either the
reebsd-...@freebsd.org [mailto:owner-freebsd-
> n...@freebsd.org] On Behalf Of Brett Glass
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 5:34 PM
> To: n...@freebsd.org
> Subject: Routing problems on VPN servers running FreeBSD 8.0-RELEASE
>
> Everyone:
>
> I've been trying t
Everyone:
I've been trying to deploy some new VPN servers (with tunneling
both in and out) running either mpd 5.3 or PoPToP on FreeBSD 8.0.
Alas, I have been having a terrible time doing it. I'm getting
error messages relating to routing, and connections which are
supposed to have proxy ARP a
LiuJiusheng wrote:
Linux takes 6.6.6.2 as gateway for route 4.4.4/24. But some Oses have the
gateway 2.2.2.2. (treat 4.4.4/24 as a recursive route).
Is there any standard for this?
No, this is entirely implementation specific. Some implementations of IP
forwarding resolve the next-hop recur
John-Mark Gurney wrote:
> LiuJiusheng wrote this message on Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 15:41 +0800:
>
>> Hello all:
>> I have found something interesting in FreeBSD routing. This is a test
>> environment, which is not used in reality(perhaps meaningless).
>>
>> | host |-
LiuJiusheng wrote this message on Wed, Oct 24, 2007 at 15:41 +0800:
> Hello all:
> I have found something interesting in FreeBSD routing. This is a test
> environment, which is not used in reality(perhaps meaningless).
>
> | host |---| router1 |--| ro
Hello all:
I have found something interesting in FreeBSD routing. This is a test
environment, which is not used in reality(perhaps meaningless).
| host |---| router1 |--| router2 |
2.2.2.2 2.2.2.1 6.6.6.1 6.6.6.2 X.X.X
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Artyom Viklenko ha scritto:
Very brief example (just to show main idea).
Assume you have thre interfaces in router fxp0 - lan, fxp1 - adsl1, fxp2 -
adsl2.
fxp0 - 192.168.0.1, fxp1 - 192.168.1.2, fxp2 - 192.168.2.2
adsl1 - 192.168.1.1, adsl2 - 192.
Artyom Viklenko ha scritto:
Very brief example (just to show main idea).
Assume you have thre interfaces in router fxp0 - lan, fxp1 - adsl1, fxp2
- adsl2.
fxp0 - 192.168.0.1, fxp1 - 192.168.1.2, fxp2 - 192.168.2.2
adsl1 - 192.168.1.1, adsl2 - 192.168.2.1
$server="192.168.0.2"
$adsl1="192.16
Josh Paetzel ha scritto:
errrm, in pf I can give you a concrete example of how to deal with
this.
Thank you very much. Please see also my reply to Artyom.
Your question seemed to imply that you don't want to load-balance or
really even do round-robin NAT and you're fine with manually cutti
Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Hello.
I have a setup where a FreeBSD box is connected to two ADSL routers:
default gateway is set to the first and, in case of failure, is moved to
the other one. This works perfectly for outgoing connections: in the
event of the switch, I'll have to reconnect, but tha
Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Artyom Viklenko ha scritto:
You have to enforce simmetrical routing on your FreeBSD box.
You can use, for example, PF firewall Using such options and features
as labels and route-to/reply-to statemens.
Also it is possible with ipfw, but I prefer PF. :)
Thanks, this i
Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Hello.
I have a setup where a FreeBSD box is connected to two ADSL routers:
default gateway is set to the first and, in case of failure, is moved to
the other one. This works perfectly for outgoing connections: in the
event of the switch, I'll have to reconnect, but tha
On Thursday 12 July 2007, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
> Artyom Viklenko ha scritto:
> > You have to enforce simmetrical routing on your FreeBSD box.
> > You can use, for example, PF firewall Using such options and
> > features as labels and route-to/reply-to statemens.
> >
> > Also it is possible with
Eric F Crist ha scritto:
> The biggest problem one would have with this sort of setup, is the
upstream provider support. I don't know of any ISP's that are going to
be willing or even able to propagate routes for your static IPs through
their DSL systems. If you want that sort of redundancy
Artyom Viklenko ha scritto:
You have to enforce simmetrical routing on your FreeBSD box.
You can use, for example, PF firewall Using such options and features
as labels and route-to/reply-to statemens.
Also it is possible with ipfw, but I prefer PF. :)
Thanks, this is interesting. However I
Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Hello.
I have a setup where a FreeBSD box is connected to two ADSL routers:
default gateway is set to the first and, in case of failure, is moved to
the other one. This works perfectly for outgoing connections: in the
event of the switch, I'll have to reconnect, but tha
On Jul 12, 2007, at 5:14 AMJul 12, 2007, Andrea Venturoli wrote:
Hello.
I have a setup where a FreeBSD box is connected to two ADSL
routers: default gateway is set to the first and, in case of
failure, is moved to the other one. This works perfectly for
outgoing connections: in the event o
Hello.
I have a setup where a FreeBSD box is connected to two ADSL routers:
default gateway is set to the first and, in case of failure, is moved to
the other one. This works perfectly for outgoing connections: in the
event of the switch, I'll have to reconnect, but that's acceptable.
The pro
Hi!
First off all i have read all the posting from 2001 that might regard my
problem but did'nt find anything at all :(
I'm having some big problems with routing on my FreeBSD 4.4 box (or
atleast i think its the routing..)
The setup is like this :
The firm has 2 different type of nets (the old HP
41 matches
Mail list logo
