Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 22:50:57 -0400 From: "Grant Peel" <grant@thenetnow.com> To: "Malcolm Kay" <malcolm.kay@internode.on.net>, "Andy Farkas" <andyf@speednet.com.au> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IP alias Networking Errors. Message-ID: <004c01c32268$78a49120$6401a8c0@grant> References: <20030525121135.C23835-100000@hewey.af.speednet.com.au> <200305251200.55652.malcolm.kay@internode.on.net> <200305251207.06527.malcolm.kay@internode.on.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi,
I am not sure if I am answering my own question here, but after reading the
man page, I got the impression, the new IPs should be assigned thier own
proper subnet, in this case 224. When I tried that, the first one was
accepted by ifconfig, but apache stopped showing the pages. Then, I tried
adding 224 to all the other IPs (new ones that is) and ifconfig would not
even accept them.
When I set them back to netmask 255 everything seemed OK again. And I did
read through man ifconfig again....
So, I am back to this again.
Name Type IP Address Netmask Status
fxp0 Ethernet 65.39.193.154 255.255.255.240 Up
fxp0:0 Ethernet (Virtual) 65.39.193.155 255.255.255.255 Up
fxp0:1 Ethernet (Virtual) 65.39.193.156 255.255.255.255 Up
fxp0:2 Ethernet (Virtual) 65.39.193.157 255.255.255.255 Up
fxp0:3 Ethernet (Virtual) 216.187.107.125 255.255.255.255 Up
fxp0:4 Ethernet (Virtual) 216.187.107.126 255.255.255.255 Up
fxp0:5 Ethernet (Virtual) 216.187.107.123 255.255.255.255 Up
fxp0:6 Ethernet (Virtual) 216.187.107.124 255.255.255.255 Up
fxp1 Ethernet 192.168.0.3 255.255.255.0 Up
lo0 Loopback 127.0.0.1 255.0.0.0 Up
-Grant
Grant W. Peel
Server Admin
grant@thenetnow.com
http://thenetnow.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Malcolm Kay" <malcolm.kay@internode.on.net>
To: "Andy Farkas" <andyf@speednet.com.au>; "Grant Peel"
<grant@thenetnow.com>
Cc: <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 24, 2003 10:37 PM
Subject: Re: IP alias Networking Errors.
> On Sun, 25 May 2003 12:00, Malcolm Kay wrote:
> > On Sun, 25 May 2003 11:51, Andy Farkas wrote:
> > > On Sat, 24 May 2003, Grant Peel wrote:
> > > > fxp0: flags=8943<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,PROMISC,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu
> > > > 1500 inet 65.39.193.154 netmask 0xfffffff0 broadcast 65.39.193.159
inet
> > > > 65.39.193.155 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 65.39.193.155 inet
> > > > 65.39.193.156 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 65.39.193.156 inet
> > > > 65.39.193.157 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 65.39.193.157 inet
> > > > 216.187.107.125 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 216.187.107.125 inet
> > > > 216.187.107.126 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 216.187.107.126 inet
> > > > 216.187.107.123 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 216.187.107.123 inet
> > > > 216.187.107.124 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 216.187.107.124 ether
> > > > 00:06:5b:ee:40:32
> > > > media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>)
> > > > status: active
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > > When the next group of IP were assigned to me, and I set them as
> > > > aliases on this machine, thats when I started getting the errors.
> > >
> > > When you add aliases for a different subnet, the netmask should be the
> > > proper one for the subnet ie. netmask 0xfffffff0.
> >
> > From the man pages (ifconfig(8)):
> > alias Establish an additional network address for this interface.
This
> > is sometimes useful when changing network numbers, and one
> > wishes to accept packets addressed to the old interface. If the address
is
> > on the same subnet as the first network address for this interface, a
> > non-conflicting netmask must be given. Usually 0xffffffff is most
> > appropriate.
> >
> > Malcolm
>
> Aah yes;
> I see I misinterpreted your statement -- sorry!
>
> Malcolm
>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?004c01c32268$78a49120$6401a8c0>