Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 08:55:03 -0800 (PST) From: "W. J. Williams" <will@willardjwilliams.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Stop this from clogging DMESG Message-ID: <20030402165503.54933.qmail@web13504.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20030402164917.GG1912@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--- Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> wrote: > In the last episode (Apr 02), W. J. Williams said: > > --- Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> wrote: > > > In the last episode (Apr 02), W. J. Williams said: > > > > arp: 192.168.0.2 is on lo0 but got reply from 00:d0:b7:b7:66:eb on > fxp1 > > > > > > > > Hi, how do I stop this line from appearing 50,000,000 times per > day > > > > in my DMESG output. I am sure it has something to do with the two > > > > nics I am running on this box. > > > > > > > > fxp0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > > > > inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 0xfffff800 broadcast > 192.168.7.255 > > > > fxp1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > > > > inet 192.168.1.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast > 192.168.1.255 > > > > > > You have overlapping networks, for one. > > > > > > fxp0's network range is 192.168.0.0 -> 192.168.7.255 > > > fxp1's network range is 192.168.1.0 -> 192.168.1.255 > > > > > > The 192.168.1/24 subnet is accessible to both cards, so the fxp1 > > > interface is redundant. Try removing the card completely. > > > > ********************************************* > > > > this box is in a lab-learning environment...how do I stop and keep > both > > cards...should I make range for fxp1 192.168.8.x? > > That's probably a good idea. Also make sure the NICs are not plugged > into the same ethernet segment, since if they are they will see the > same broadcast packets and start complaining about other things. Use > IP aliases on a single card if you only have one ethernet segment > available. ************************************************ Dan, thx...yes, I only have one ethernet switch, but i believe it is capable of handling virtual LANs...should I build VLANS on the switch to separate the ethernet segments? I am running 8 pcs and simulating various things (VPNS, firewalls, etc) .It is a 24-port 3com 3300 switch. I just got my gig-e nic running now as well, so will experiment with routing traffic through it. thoughts? ===== Will Williams
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030402165503.54933.qmail>