From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 26 16:32:40 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 929E416A4E2 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:32:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ns1.midasnetworks.com (216-110-12-8.gen.twtelecom.net [216.110.12.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEE6843D73 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:32:37 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from clb@midasnetworks.com) Received: from [192.168.1.254] (216-110-12-124.gen.twtelecom.net [216.110.12.124]) (authenticated bits=0)i6QGWC2N073019 for ; Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:32:12 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from clb@midasnetworks.com) From: Chris Boyd To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Content-Type: text/plain Organization: Midas Networks, Inc. Message-Id: <1090859528.3543.40.camel@cookie> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.6-1mdk Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 11:32:08 -0500 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: interface aliases with the fxp driver X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: clb@midasnetworks.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2004 16:32:40 -0000 While setting up a server with several IP addresses on the same interface, we noticed something a bit odd. When we add the new IP address with the command ifconfig fxp0 alias 192.168.12.100 netmask 255.255.255.255 We can ping the address and all seems well at first. Then apparently the other machines' ARP caches time out, and the 192.168.12.100 IP address is no longer reachable on the LAN. tcpdump confirms that the server is not responding to ARP requests. Adding the arp keyword to the ifconfig command seems to fix things. ifconfig fxp0 alias arp 192.168.12.100 netmask 255.255.255.255 Works as we'd expect. This was observed on 4.9-RELEASE and 4.10-STABLE I've not tried it on boxes with other kinds of Ethernet cards yet. Is this normal, or a bug in the fxp driver? Thanks! --Chris