From owner-freebsd-questions Wed Apr 28 4:40:15 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from emerald.ts.ee (emerald.ts.ee [194.204.16.66]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D423F156FA for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 04:39:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from r.jemets@ts.ee) Received: from vegas.sadam (vegas.sadam [192.168.10.250]) by emerald.ts.ee (8.8.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id OAA09445 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:39:52 +0300 Received: from white (rjemets.sadam [192.168.10.19]) by vegas.sadam (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id OAA25267 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:39:49 +0300 Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.19990428144057.00b25100@vegas> X-Sender: r.jemets@vegas X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.6 (32) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999 14:40:57 +0300 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org From: Roman Jemets Subject: Re: 2 NICs In-Reply-To: <4.1.19990428185923.041ffa80@admin.ibahn.net> References: <3.0.5.32.19990428103136.00a58a10@relay.alice.it> <4.1.19990428143537.03d1f4c0@admin.ibahn.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG At 19:27 28.04.99 +0800, you wrote: They are connected to one physical ethernet segment, aren't they? That's why ARP may get confused by sending ARP request from one interface and then receive it to second one back, I guess. >The NICs have different IPs assigned to them. > > >xl0: flags=8843 mtu 1500 > inet 10.177.1.233 netmask 0xfffffffc broadcast 10.177.1.235 > ether 00:10:5a:6c:f0:1f > media: 10baseT/UTP > supported media: autoselect 100baseTX 100baseTX >ex> 100baseTX 10baseT/UTP 10baseT/UTP 10baseT/UTP >xl1: flags=8843 mtu 1500 > inet 10.19.254.6 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 10.19.254.255 > ether 00:10:4b:79:2a:4a > media: 10baseT/UTP > supported media: autoselect 100baseTX 100baseTX >ex> 100baseTX 10baseT/UTP 10baseT/UTP 10baseT/UTP To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message