Static routing

["Dante F. B. Colò"]

Sorry, i forgot to mention ,the Cisco router has the ip 
189.92.72.9/255.255.255.248, there is no bridgie configured on the 
Linux  (Debian 5 and 6 kernel 2.6) machine  ,i just setup these static 
routes to do that but i really don't know how the Linux TCP stack handle 
this, anyway thanks for your reply,  i'm gonna try the bridge on freebsd 
and openbsd.

Regards
Dante

On 11/11/14 6:21 PM, Jon Radel wrote:
> 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
>