we hare 3 ISPs. and we are running haproxy (which is similar to
relayd, proxies tcp connections from Internet to LAN).
so, with rdomains we need to
a) run 3 instances of haproxy (route -T 2 exec
/usr/local/sbin/haproxy, and so on)
b) all of haproxy will access LAN, which can belong to just one rd
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 01:17:10PM +0500, ??? wrote:
> thank everyone.
>
> routing domains seem to be much more powerful than I need.
> I just needed outgoing packets through the appropriate interface, it
> can be achived by "reply-to" thing in PF.
>
You can also use a simple additional
thank everyone.
routing domains seem to be much more powerful than I need.
I just needed outgoing packets through the appropriate interface, it
can be achived by "reply-to" thing in PF.
but I'll keep an eye on rdomains for some future use.
2011/12/21 Henning Brauer :
> well that is how rdomains
well that is how rdomains work, they are isolated from each other, pf
can break that isolation up. an sshd in rdomain 0 is not reachable
from another rdomain, except pf is used to allow that - or something
external routes between them.
* Russell Garrison [2011-12-20 21:50]:
> I was inspired and r
I was inspired and realized you can do better with pf:
pass in on em5 proto tcp to 192.168.235.12 port 22 \
rdr-to 192.168.163.1 rtable 0
I am not using vlan and my interfaces have IP addresses assigned.
235.12 above is the management IP of the host in a non-zero rdomain
and 163.1 is the
I have found that I need to add something like:
!route -T 2 exec /usr/sbin/sshd
To the pertinent hostname.if file to make sure sshd is listening in
addtional routing tables, but I do not know if this is best.
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 1:02 PM, PP;Q Q P(P8P?P8QP8P=
wrote:
> Hello.
>
> I'm runni
6 matches
Mail list logo
