From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Jan 4 1:15:38 2001 From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jan 4 01:15:35 2001 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mailhost01.reflexnet.net (mailhost01.reflexnet.net [64.6.192.82]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 277AD37B400 for ; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 01:15:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from rfx-64-6-211-149.users.reflexcom.com ([64.6.211.149]) by mailhost01.reflexnet.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.197.19); Thu, 4 Jan 2001 01:13:41 -0800 Received: (from cjc@localhost) by rfx-64-6-211-149.users.reflexcom.com (8.11.0/8.11.0) id f049FKA17998; Thu, 4 Jan 2001 01:15:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from cjc) Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 01:15:20 -0800 From: "Crist J. Clark" To: Alfred Perlstein Cc: Cliff Sarginson , cjclark@alum.mit.edu, "Brent B.Powers" , David Kelly , Tim Gustafson , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Two NICs In FreeBSD Message-ID: <20010104011520.M95729@rfx-64-6-211-149.users.reflexco> Reply-To: cjclark@alum.mit.edu References: <20010104002809.U292@fw.wintelcom.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i In-Reply-To: <20010104002809.U292@fw.wintelcom.net>; from bright@wintelcom.net on Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 12:28:09AM -0800 Sender: cjc@rfx-64-6-211-149.users.reflexcom.com Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 12:28:09AM -0800, Alfred Perlstein wrote: > * Cliff Sarginson [010104 00:23] wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 04, 2001 at 01:47:37AM -0500, Brent B.Powers wrote: > > > > > Someplace I've a sun doc that discusses how to do this on SunOS and > > > > Solaris. The reason you might want to do it might include redundancy > > > > (I've had NIC's die on me, sometimes from overheat) > > > > > > This is not the way to do it. The IP address of a fried card will > > > still be unreachable. > > > > > > > and possibly increasing bandwidth. > > > > > Increase bandwidth ? A pipe doesn't increase it's width just because you > > try to pour more water into it. At least not under the conventional laws > > of this particular universe... > > > > > > > In fact, for the second reason, it's relatively > > > > commonly done with PPP links, which amounts to two NIC's on the same > > > > network. > > > > > > Huh, how's that? > > 100mbit ports, GigE uplink? But that is a whole 'nuther beast. Yes, there are situations where multiple NICs from a single box increases bandwidth, but I can't think of one where it is a collision domain (not completely true but for this conversation, close enough), and that should be the only time a NIC hears ARP replies meant for another interface. -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@alum.mit.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message