Re: static routes on VLAN on CURRENT

On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 21:12:17 +0200
Milan Obuch <freebsd-current_at_dino.sk> wrote:

> On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 20:13:49 +0200
> "Hartmann, O." <o.hartmann_at_walstatt.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 2 Jul 2017 14:39:34 +0200
> > Milan Obuch <freebsd-current_at_dino.sk> wrote:  
> 
> [ snip ]
> 
> > > > To not use a routing daemon due to the small size of my network, I
> > > > desided to use static routes, in rc.conf I placed the following
> > > > variables:
> > > > 
> > > > static_routes="igb1.2 igb1.10"
> > > > route_igb1_2="-net 192.168.2.0/24 -interface igb1.2"
> > > > route_igb1_10="-net 192.168.10.0/24 -interface igb1.10"
> > > > 
> > > > igb1 is assigned to IP/NET 192.168.0.1/24
> > > >   
> 
> Just to be exact, could you show us ifconfig lines from rc.conf as well?
> It is common to have something like

I do not have entries in cloned_interfaces="". I use 

vlans_igb1="2 10" and so forth.

> 
> cloned_interfaces="igb1.2 igb1.10"
> ifconfig_igb1_2="192.168.2.1/24"
> ifconfig_igb1_10="192.168.10.1/24"

ifconfig_igb1_2="inet 192.168.2.1 netmask 0xffffff00"

same for igb1.10

Additionally, I had the static route definitions.
I deleted them and realised that routing is done automatically - something that
is not desired in the first place.

The "thinking" behind static routes was not to have routing between those
interfaces in an automatic manner, but explicitely allowed via the static
route. My bad, FBSD seems to have some surprises left.


> 
> and no static routes as you showed, because address assigned to
> interface means automatically line in route table, however, they should
> look identical to those shown in your first mail.

Yes, they do and the routing seems to be established.

> 
> > > > netstat -Warn gives me (as dummy, since I have no direct access to
> > > > the box via serial console from the system I write this mail):
> > > > 
> > > > Internet:
> > > > Destination      Gateway         Flags       Use    Mtu      Netif
> > > > 127.0.0.1        link#3          UH       334564  16384        lo0
> > > > 192.168.0.0/24   link#4          U         23452   1500
> > > > igb1 192.168.0.1      link#4          UHS       29734
> > > > 16384        lo0 192.168.2.0/24   link#5          U
> > > > 271   1500 igb1.2 192.168.2.1      link#5          UHS           0
> > > > 16384        lo0     
> > > 
> > > I think you did not include network 192.168.10.0/24 on igb1.10...    
> > 
> > I skipped that, it is quite the same according to the settings of the
> > others and unused for now. So it doesn't matter. But you're right.
> >  
> 
> This was just for tha sake of completteness, nothing else.
> 
> [ sysctl stuff snipped - not relevant, I think ]
> 
> > > > From the routing device itself, it is possible to ssh into a VoIP
> > > > client attached to the switch to which igb1.2 trunks the net.
> > > > Pinging is also possible.
> > > > 
> > > > Attached to igb1 is the 192.168.0.1/24 network with a bunch of
> > > > hosts. From any host within this network it is possible to ping
> > > > the 192.168.2.0/24 network and its hosts within, but no SSH, not
> > > > web (80, 443). 
> > > >      
> > > 
> > > Weird - if icmp (ping) works and tcp (web, ssh) not, something is
> > > filtering traffic. But with net.inet.ip.forwarding=0, even pinging
> > > host should not work. Try tcpdump to see what's going on.     
> > 
> > net.inet.ip.forwarding works as expected. See above, I confused the
> > OID.
> >   
> 
> [ snip ]
> 
> > > From network architecture view, there is no difference - vlan is
> > > network interface just like physical ethernet. Basically everything
> > > is the same (sometimes there is issue with mtu, but this hardware
> > > dependent).    
> > 
> > Yes, so I thought, but as you stated, something is filtering and I
> > have no clue what.
> >   
> 
> Then I just recommend tcpdump - I would use 'tcpdump -nepi igb1.2 host
> 192.168.0.x and host 192.168.2.y' and 'tcpdump -nepi igb1 host
> 192.168.0.x and host 192.168.2.y' in two session and compare outputs
> when pinging from 192.168.0.x to 192.168.2.y and when trying to ssh
> from the former to the later. Also there is a question then what these
> two devices are, what OS are they running, their network
> configuration... then we can analyse the problem better.

Thank you very much for the details of analysing. I regret, at the moment I
have no access to the facility. But except the device bearing the IP
192.168.2.y, which is a commercial VoIP endpoint, other parties are 12-CURRENT
of a very well known OS. 

I'll check as soon as I have acces.
> 
> Regards,
> Milan
> 

Thank you very much and kind regards,

Oliver