[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Routing Problem - Need Help
- To: misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
- Subject: Re: Routing Problem - Need Help
- From: Claudio Jeker <cjeker_(_at_)_diehard_(_dot_)_n-r-g_(_dot_)_com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:16:33 +0100
- Mail-followup-to: Claudio Jeker <cjeker_(_at_)_diehard_(_dot_)_n-r-g_(_dot_)_com>, misc_(_at_)_openbsd_(_dot_)_org
On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 04:38:58PM -0800, Karsten McMinn wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 22:33:14 +0100, Claudio Jeker
> <cjeker_(_at_)_diehard_(_dot_)_n-r-g_(_dot_)_com> wrote:
> > While your example needs to fail I don't see a reason why
> > xl0: 10.0.0.254/24
> > xl1: 10.0.50.99/16
> > needs to fail.
> because this isn't exactly a cisco gsr here. the more specific doesn't
> get loaded by default, although logic says it should, the larger is
> king in the openbsd routing table. also fyi, Cisco doesn't let you
> overlap on interfaces either. I don't want to get into ipv4 design
> limitations, suffice it to say that it could work if one wanted to
> tweak source.
This is not fully true. In this example only 10.0.0/24 is loaded as xl0 is
added first. Currently the first wins and this is bad.
Sure running a system with overlapping interfaces is not fine art. All
hosts on the larger net need to have a static route for the more specific
Side note: using 10.0.1.254/24 for xl0 will not show this behaviour. In
this case both routes will be added.
Visit your host, monkey.org