On 9/12/2021 5:41 AM, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> On 10/09/2021 00:38, mike tancsa wrote:
>> On our standard nanobsd router image we use, I noticed failover routing
>> broke all of a sudden. We are not using multiple FIBs, but somehow we
>> now have two default routes I am guessing because of multipath.
On 10/09/2021 00:38, mike tancsa wrote:
On our standard nanobsd router image we use, I noticed failover routing
broke all of a sudden. We are not using multiple FIBs, but somehow we
now have two default routes I am guessing because of multipath. (Note,
we just started testing RELENG_13 so its p
On 9/10/2021 11:52 AM, mike tancsa wrote:
> On 9/10/2021 11:34 AM, Helge Oldach wrote:
>> Zhenlei Huang wrote on Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:34:20 +0200 (CEST):
On Sep 10, 2021, at 5:38 AM, mike tancsa wrote:
default10.255.255.1 UGS 6 1500 igb0
default
On 9/10/2021 11:34 AM, Helge Oldach wrote:
> Zhenlei Huang wrote on Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:34:20 +0200 (CEST):
>>> On Sep 10, 2021, at 5:38 AM, mike tancsa wrote:
>>> default10.255.255.1 UGS 6 1500 igb0
>>> default10.1.0.1 UGS17 1500
> On Sep 10, 2021, at 5:38 AM, mike tancsa wrote:
>
> On our standard nanobsd router image we use, I noticed failover routing
> broke all of a sudden. We are not using multiple FIBs, but somehow we
> now have two default routes I am guessing because of multipath. (Note,
> we just started tes
On our standard nanobsd router image we use, I noticed failover routing
broke all of a sudden. We are not using multiple FIBs, but somehow we
now have two default routes I am guessing because of multipath. (Note,
we just started testing RELENG_13 so its possible I am making bad
assumptions somewh
