Static routing

[Jon Radel]

On 11/11/14, 3:04 PM, "Dante F. B. Colò" wrote:
> Hi Martin
>
> Thank you for your response. I mean the same subnet on both interfaces 
> , i was just trying to setup  static route for destinies 
> *189.92.72.11* and *189.92.72.12*  through the *em1* omitting the 
> gateway, that's what we do on Linux ( eg route add -host *189.92.72.11 
> *dev ethx)  but without success here.
>
>
>
>  +-------+
>  | Cisco |
>  +-----+-+
>        |if: 189.92.72.0/29
>        |
>        |em0: 189.92.72.10/255.255.255.248
>      +-+-------+
>      | FreeBSD |
>      +-+-------+
>        |em1: 189.92.72.11/255.255.255.248
>
>        |
>        |
>  +-----+--+
>  | Switch |            +-----------------+
>  +--------+            |  MAIL           |
>        |---------------+-----------------+
>                         bnx0: 189.72.92.12/255.255.255.248
>
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly both on the FreeBSD and 
OpenBSD mailing lists, TCP/IP routing doesn't work like that. Judging 
from your diagram, the Cisco thinks 189.92.72.0-189.92.72.7 are 
available on its interface; so how does it talk to 189.92.72.10?  The 
FreeBSD box thinks that addresses 189.92.72.8-189.92.72.15 are on 
interface em0.  It thinks the same addresses are on interface em1.   If 
this is the case, you can not route between them, because they are the 
same network.

I have no idea what you're doing on the Linux box, but it's not layer 3 
routing using that topology.  Are you sure you are not bridging on the 
Linux box?

--Jon Radel
jon at radel.com

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 3931 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20141111/20669a20/attachment.bin>