Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2001 21:29:16 -0400 (EDT) From: Darren Henderson <darren@bmv.state.me.us> To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 4.4 arp problem Message-ID: <Pine.A41.4.21.0109252127410.15504-100000@katahdin.bmv.state.me.us> In-Reply-To: <Pine.A41.4.21.0109252115260.15514-100000@katahdin.bmv.state.me.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Well, geesh, one of thoe days... I still had a mistake in the routing
info. Apologies for the reposts....
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Darren Henderson wrote:
>
> NOTE: I goofed when I put out this question, trying to obscure the addresses
> a bit I picked a range that wasn't representative of the values in actual
> use. The result was that address ranges were incorrect. They are correct
> below.
>
> I upgraded a system from 4.3-STABLE to 4.4-STABLE using cvs on 9/23.
>
> Everything was fine before the upgrade, upgrade went smoothly with the
> exeption of the MAKEDEV problem thats been reported on the list recently.
>
> This is a dual homed box (multi homed actually but only two interfaces are
> in the kernel and active). Typical set up with ipfw/natd.
>
> The system is apparently running just fine. However, I am seeing "/kernel:
> arp_rtrequest: bad gateway value" messages which were never there before.
> Anyone have an idea what may be causing them?
>
> Searching the archives and the web turns up precious little. This is
> apparently generated in netinet/if_ether and relates to aliases. I do have
> several aliases defined on one interface. They are configured in
> /etc/rc.conf as (x.y.z being numeric of course) ...
>
> ifconfig_dc0="inet 10.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0"
> ifconfig_dc1="inet x.y.z.162 netmask 255.255.255.240"
> ifconfig_dc1_alias0="inet x.y.z.163 netmask 255.255.255.255"
> ifconfig_dc1_alias1="inet x.y.z.166 netmask 255.255.255.255"
> ifconfig_dc1_alias2="inet x.y.z.174 netmask 255.255.255.255"
> gateway_enable="YES"
> router_enable="YES"
> defaultrouter="x.y.z.161"
>
> And from netstat -rn we see (in part, lo0 & dc0 routes excluded)....
>
> default x.y.z.161 UGSc 29 541559 dc1
> x.y.z.160/28 link#2 UC 2 0 dc1
> x.y.z.161 (nic of gateway) UHLW 3 0 dc1 1183
> x.y.z.163 x.y.z.163 UHLW 0 4 lo0 =>
> x.y.z.163/32 link#2 UC 1 0 dc1
> x.y.z.166 x.y.z.166 UHLW 0 10 lo0 =>
> x.y.z.166/32 link#2 UC 1 0 dc1
> x.y.z.174 (nic of link#2) UHLW 0 6 lo0 =>
> x.y.z.174/32 link#2 UC 0 0 dc1
>
> I believe 174 looks different then 163 and 166 becuase those two addresses
> are redirected via ipfw/natd to internal addresses.
>
> Something changed in the way interface aliases are handled? Am I looking at
> the wrong things? Any thoughts appreciated.
>
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Darren Henderson darren@bmv.state.me.us
> darren.henderson@state.me.us
>
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
>
________________________________________________________________________
Darren Henderson darren@bmv.state.me.us
darren.henderson@state.me.us
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.A41.4.21.0109252127410.15504-100000>