On Wed, Sep 13, 2017 at 9:43 AM, Mike Belopuhov <mike@belopuhov.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 18:41 -0400, sven falempin wrote:
> > Feels like it s impossible to use virtual routing table without a
> rdomain
> > on interface with 6.1
> >
>
> I think you were relying on an arp(1) bug that influenced your
> understanding of routing tables and routing domains. To recap:
>
> 1. There can be only one ARP table per routing domain.
>
> > # arp -V 122 -s 172.16.1.1 ac:64:dd:b0:00:03 [permanent]
> > arp: writing to routing socket: No such process
> > arp: 172.16.1.1: No such process
> >
>
> What you're trying to do here is to add an ARP entry on the
> routing domain 122 (not routing table 122).
>
> 2. A single routing domain can have multiple routing tables.
>
> > Even if the routing can be modify with
> >
> > /sbin/route -T122 add -inet 172.16.1.1 -llinfo -link -static -iface em5
> &&
> > route -T122 add default 172.16.1.1
> >
>
> This adds a default route into the routing table number 122
> no matter which routing domain it belongs to (0 in your case).
>
> > -
> >
> > # route -T122 show
> > Routing tables
> >
> > Internet:
> > Destination Gateway Flags Refs Use Mtu Prio
> > Iface
> > default 172.16.1.1 UGS 0 0 - 8
> em5
> > 172.16.1.1 link#6 UHLS 0 1 - 8
> em5
> >
> > -
> >
> > arp table remain empty and i cannot ping -V 122 172.16.1.1
> >
> > This was possible 6.0
> >
> > Will it be possible in 6.2 ?? YES :-D :o
> >
>
> arp(1) had a bug that prevented all of it's execution modes
> from working on multiple rdomains, so it appears that you
> were relying on "arp -V 122" working on rdomain 0 while in
> fact the intention was for it work work on rdomain 122 and
> this should be the case now.
>
> Hope this clarifies the situation.
>
> > # uname -a
> > OpenBSD lulz.com 6.2 GENERIC.MP#63 amd64
> >
> > # ifconfig em0
> > em0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
> > lladdr 00:03:2d:36:95:5e
> > index 1 priority 0 llprio 3
> > groups: egress
> > media: Ethernet autoselect (1000baseT
> full-duplex,rxpause,txpause)
> > status: active
> > inet 172.16.1.45 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 172.16.1.255
> >
> > # route -T 120 add default 172.16.1.1
> > add net default: gateway 172.16.1.1
> > # ping -V 172.16.1.1
> > ping: rtable value is invalid: 172.16.1.1
> > # ping -V 120 172.16.1.1
> > PING 172.16.1.1 (172.16.1.1): 56 data bytes
> > 64 bytes from 172.16.1.1: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=0.444 ms
> > 64 bytes from 172.16.1.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=255 time=0.351 ms
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > I m asking a lot but
> > Is there a chance to fix this in 6.1 without to much work ??
> > Any workaround ( better than mine ) ?
> >
> > [0]-[]-[/]
> > # ifconfig em5
> > em5: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
> > lladdr fe:e1:ba:28:22:44
> > description: citywan
> > index 6 priority 0 llprio 3
> > groups: egress
> > media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX
> full-duplex,rxpause,txpause)
> > status: active
> > inet 172.16.1.33 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 172.16.1.255
> > [0]-[]-[/]
> > # route -T 111 add default 172.16.1.1
> > add net default: gateway 172.16.1.1: Network is unreachable
> >
>
> You should send this bug report separately.
> Do I understand it correctly that this command doesn't work
> util you issue the one below?
>
> /sbin/route -T122 add -inet 172.16.1.1 -llinfo -link -static -iface em5
>
>
>
This is the only bug report of the mail, all the above is trying to
workaround.
--
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do
No comments:
Post a Comment