[list.ibmtcp-l] Does FAL ICMP Redirect?

Andr'e PIRARD <A-PIRARD@BLIULG11.bitnet> (02/26/90)

I realize VM FAL on a 3090 shouldn't be used as a local gateway. But
how avoid it be a default gateway if it can use an existing SNA link
to go to Internet?
Some tests showed a problem. VM FAL does not seem to produce "ICMP
redirect" when it receives a datagram that it knows must go to another
gateway of the local network. All such traffic keeps going through the
3090. Or is my configuration (below) wrong?

     netw1        netw2
   192.9.220    192.9.210                   future SNA
       |            |                           |
      SUN1         SUN2                   VM FAL on 3090
  192.9.230.1  192.9.230.2                 192.9.230.10
       |            |                           |
---------------------------/ /---------------------------  Ethernet
                                          |
                                 ME (NCSA Telnet(CUTCP))
                                     192.9.230.13

- When I configure ME to use SUN1 as only known gateway and I telnet a
host on netw2, two ICMP Redirects are listed on CUTCP's log, and I
assume they are obeyed.
- When I configure ME to use VM FAL as gateway instead and I telnet a
host of netw1 or netw2, I see no Redirect and I know for sure from
8232 activity that all datagrams pass through FAL.

     What I am trying to do is FAL block away from (future) SNA
datagrams that should stay local, and redirect without incurring any
further load. I'd like the right side of the Ethernet not to use the
Suns of the left as gateway because of a future split. And FAL is the
only that can act as gateway on the right for now.

HOME
 * Local host's Internet addresses
   192.9.230.10   ETH1
GATEWAY
 * Network  First hop   Driver  Packet size  Subnet mask  Subnet value
 * Direct routes
   192.9.230    =         ETH1     1500         0
 * Indirect routes
   192.9.210  192.9.230.2 ETH1     1500         0
   192.9.220  192.9.230.1 ETH1     1500         0
TRANSLATE
   192.9.230.10   ETHERNET  00DD01081FB0
   192.9.230.1    ETHERNET  08002000F784
   192.9.230.2    ETHERNET  080020000EF1

     BTW, I guess these TRANSLATE are unnecessary, even to be avoided,
when the hosts do ARP and for FAL itself (10). They were included for
this test, but it didn't change a thing.

     Any help for a starting static addressing scheme much appreciated.

Andr'e PIRARD
SEGI Univ. de Li`ege
B26 - Sart Tilman
B-4000 Li`ege 1 (Belgium)
A-PIRARD@BLIULG11 on EARN alias BITNET
A-PIRARD@VM1.EARN-ULG.AC.BE as known to Internet