From owner-freebsd-current  Sun Mar 10 01:23:57 1996
Return-Path: owner-current
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id BAA06781
          for current-outgoing; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 01:23:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from central.cis.upenn.edu (CENTRAL.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.12.2])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA06771
          for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 01:23:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from gradin.cis.upenn.edu (GRADIN.CIS.UPENN.EDU [158.130.4.4]) by central.cis.upenn.edu (8.6.12/UPenn 1.4) with ESMTP 
	id EAA27095 for <current@freebsd.org>; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 04:23:51 -0500
Received: by gradin.cis.upenn.edu
	id EAA07541; Sun, 10 Mar 1996 04:23:50 -0500
From: dherbst@gradient.cis.upenn.edu (Darrel Herbst)
Posted-Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 04:23:50 -0500
Message-Id: <199603100923.EAA07541@gradin.cis.upenn.edu>
Subject: Re: 3c5X9 working?
To: current@freebsd.org
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 1996 04:23:50 -0500 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <XFMail.960310100812.gena@NetVision.net.il> from "Gennady Sorokopud" at Mar 10, 96 10:07:09 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23-upenn3.1]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> On 09-Mar-96 "Justin T. Gibbs" wrote:
> >>Are any of you having problems with 3c509 or 3c579 cards in current?
> 
> Seems to be stable as a rock right now. I tested the card under all
> possible network conditions (except probably multicast and IPX) and everything
> works fine.

I'm having trouble with multicasting on the 3c509.  The -current
driver just sort of lets you set yourself in the multicast group, but
doesn't seem to tell the arp tables that the multicast ip should be
treated as a multicast ip.  Hence, I get "host down" errors when I try
and send multicast udp packets out and the arp timer goes off on my
multicast ip address.  I tried to look at the way if_ed.c handles
this, but my changes didn't solve the problem.

I don't think this affects the stability of the driver, but the
functionality is incorrect, isn't it?  I mean, you shouldn't send arp
packets on a multicast address, should you?