From owner-freebsd-net Tue Mar 30 17:33:34 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from shome.eu.org (sirius.stack.net [192.124.172.17]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2026914BF9 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 1999 17:33:30 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from as@shome.eu.org) Received: from lamb (lamb.shome.eu.org [195.19.5.8]) by shome.eu.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id FAA17341; Wed, 31 Mar 1999 05:28:30 +0400 From: "Alex Sel'kov" To: Cc: Subject: RE: 2 cards in one collision domain Date: Wed, 31 Mar 1999 05:34:43 +0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2212 (4.71.2419.0) In-reply-to: <1551469.3131810709@d225.promo.de> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > Did you add "options BRIDGE" to your kernel config file? > > I'm now somewhat confused. I *think* that you'd normally > shouldn't see this > message, unless you enabled bridging. > Yes, I did. But net.link.ether.bridge: 0 is not enough to disable bridging at all? > However, why would you want to enable bridging between two interfaces > connected to the same net? > No, I don't. But this is only one of possible configurations. I must to play with various scenario, with and without bridging. In this current case I don't want any bridging functionality. Anyway, I can simply use a different kernel versions in different scenario. > Why have you connected both interfaces to the same net? If you want your > host to be on two subnets on the same wire, simply configure both IPs (see > /etc/rc.conf for details). Yes, I want have two connections to large shared media (large bridged/switched net on logical link layer). I can use aliases, but this is not exact what I need. because I can have different rules of game at MAC layer and MAC address can make difference. > Hhm. Can you compile /sys/pci/if_de.c with TULIP_DEBUG enabled? And give > us some more information on the make and model of the cards your using? > de0: Vendor: Nexo (http://www.nexo.com.tw). Name - NEC-100D. Chip - INTEL 21143-PD. Transceiver - DM9101F. de1: Vendor: unknown. Name: unknown. Chip - Digital 21143-PC. Transceiver - Kendin KS8761. dmesg: de0: rev 0x41 int a irq 16 on pci0.19.0 de0: 21143 [10-100Mb/s] pass 4.1 (invalid EESPROM checksum) de0: address 00:00:1c:b0:d9:37 de0: timeout: probing 100baseTX de1: rev 0x30 int a irq 16 on pci2.4.0 de1: 21143 [10-100Mb/s] pass 3.0 de1: address 00:c0:ca:11:78:ed de1: timeout: probing 100baseTX de0: enabling 100baseTX port de1: timeout: probing 10baseT de1: enabling 10baseT port de0: timeout: probing 100baseTX de1: timeout: probing 100baseTX de1: timeout: probing 10baseT de1: enabling 10baseT port arp: 192.168.10.254 is on de0 but got reply from 00:80:48:d9:76:77 on de1 I got last message because now kernel recompiled without bridging support. But it looks strange - it is not an error from my point of view... :) Regards, as To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message