09.08.08, 16:22, "Matthew Seaman" <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>:> Andrew Snow wrote: > > > > Usually if there is more than IP in a given subnet on an interface, you > > give it a /32 netmask. Only the first IP in a subnet should have the > > full netmask. > > > > So your example should look like this: > > > > > > inet 10.11.16.14 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.11.16.255 > > inet 10.11.16.9 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 10.11.16.9 > /32 netmasks for 2nd and subsequent IP alias addresses used to be > mandatory and are arguably more correct, but nowadays you can use > the actual netmask for the network instead. Was fixed a year or > two ago. It's a wetware compatibility thing -- other unixoid OSes > never had the /32 netmask requirement, and it kept tripping people up > when swapping between OSes. > Unfortunately I can't say exactly what the problem the OP is experiencing > is due to, but the way routes are appearing and disappearing on a 5 > minute timescale does suggest dynamic routing problems to me. As a > work-around, if the OP wanted to override the information routed gets > from the network, then he could use /etc/gateways to have the local > routed append some static routes to the routing table -- see routed(8) > for the gory details. Losing a route for a directly attached network > looks like a bug to me though. > Cheers, > Matthew> > inet 10.11.16.14 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.11.16.255 > > inet 10.11.16.9 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 10.11.16.9/24 mask on each IPs on same interfaces is working fine on FreeBSD 6.3 So I do not think that problem is with the network mask. Because of even ping 10.11.16.14 returns network is unreachable! Now when I upgraded to v7 I see trouble described earlier. So this is must be counted as BUG of v7 5min period is seen without routed. With routed I get next picture: start routed: network is unreachable stop routed: network still unreacheable start routed: network is reachable stop routed: network is reacheable start routed: network is unreachable again The thing which is very interesting is: Why period is 5 min?
On Sat, Aug 09, 2008 at 05:23:32PM +0400, KES wrote:> 09.08.08, 16:22, "Matthew Seaman" <m.seaman@infracaninophile.co.uk>: > > Andrew Snow wrote: > > > Usually if there is more than IP in a given subnet on an interface, you > > > give it a /32 netmask. Only the first IP in a subnet should have the > > > full netmask. > > > > > > So your example should look like this: > > > > > > inet 10.11.16.14 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.11.16.255 > > > inet 10.11.16.9 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 10.11.16.9 > > /32 netmasks for 2nd and subsequent IP alias addresses used to be > > mandatory and are arguably more correct, but nowadays you can use > > the actual netmask for the network instead. Was fixed a year or > > two ago. It's a wetware compatibility thing -- other unixoid OSes > > never had the /32 netmask requirement, and it kept tripping people up > > when swapping between OSes. > > Unfortunately I can't say exactly what the problem the OP is experiencing > > is due to, but the way routes are appearing and disappearing on a 5 > > minute timescale does suggest dynamic routing problems to me. As a > > work-around, if the OP wanted to override the information routed gets > > from the network, then he could use /etc/gateways to have the local > > routed append some static routes to the routing table -- see routed(8) > > for the gory details. Losing a route for a directly attached network > > looks like a bug to me though....> > > > inet 10.11.16.14 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.11.16.255 > > > inet 10.11.16.9 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 10.11.16.9 > /24 mask on each IPs on same interfaces is working fine on FreeBSD 6.3 > So I do not think that problem is with the network mask. Because of even ping 10.11.16.14 > returns network is unreachable! > Now when I upgraded to v7 I see trouble described earlier. > So this is must be counted as BUG of v7I happened to see recently a report of a similar problem with 7.0 on a private mailing list. Again, there were multiple IP addresses configured within the main subnet of the interface (this time configured as /32s on other physical interfaces) and again, after a while the system lost connectivity to its main subnet and "forgot" how to ARP for addresses on the interface. An important similarity - the routing info like yours showed the attached network with the G flag, as being reachable via the gateway address within the same subnet. I can't troubleshoot this, no access to the system in question, but I thought it might help to know that others have run into the same problem.> The thing which is very interesting is: > Why period is 5 min?Might be something to do with ARP? Not sure. -- Clifton -- Clifton Royston -- cliftonr@iandicomputing.com / cliftonr@lava.net President - I and I Computing * http://www.iandicomputing.com/ Custom programming, network design, systems and network consulting services
09.08.08, 18:30, "Kurt Jaeger" <pi@opsec.eu>:> Hi! > > So I do not think that problem is with the network mask. Because of even ping 10.11.16.14 > > returns network is unreachable! > > Now when I upgraded to v7 I see trouble described earlier. > > So this is must be counted as BUG of v7 > It might be some issue with ARP timeouts ?10.11.16.14 is local address tcpdump on the interface with this address shows nothing>The system learns > the other IPs using some indirect way and forgets it as soon > as the arp address times out ?I do not think so. Because of when I ping local address 10.11.16.14 for an our without breaking this ping. So mac address can not die because of timeout. It dissappears from kernel routing table by some other cause. I do not know which cause> > 5min period is seen without routed. > > With routed I get next picture: > > start routed: network is unreachable > > stop routed: network still unreacheable > > start routed: network is reachable > > stop routed: network is reacheable > > start routed: network is unreachable again > > > > The thing which is very interesting is: > > Why period is 5 min? > Why do you run routed ?I want to use RIP> Why don't you just statically assign the routes ?Because of I have two links to same place router1 --- LAN1 --- router2 | / LAN2 LAN3 | / router3 ---------/ router1: 10.0.16.1/24, 10.10.16.8/24 router2: 10.11.16.1/24, 10.0.16.3/24 router3: 10.11.16.14/24, 10.10.16.3/24 LAN1: 10.0.16.0 LAN2: 10.10.16.0 LAN3: 10.11.16.0 router3: rl0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> metric 0 mtu 1500 options=8<VLAN_MTU> ether 00:0e:2e:db:4f:d4 inet 10.11.16.14 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.11.16.255 inet 10.11.16.9 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.11.16.255 inet 10.10.16.3 netmask 0xfffffff0 broadcast 10.10.16.15 media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>) status: active I add 10.10.16.3 address to rl0 by mistake. It must be on rl1 interface. But when I added it I lose connection to my LAN. I think this behavior is bug so I describe problem in letters earlier