From owner-freebsd-net Sun Oct 10 17:23:59 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from bubba.whistle.com (bubba.whistle.com [207.76.205.7]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A66EC1527B for ; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 17:23:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from archie@whistle.com) Received: (from archie@localhost) by bubba.whistle.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) id RAA11188; Sun, 10 Oct 1999 17:23:21 -0700 (PDT) From: Archie Cobbs Message-Id: <199910110023.RAA11188@bubba.whistle.com> Subject: Re: arp errors on machines with two interfaces In-Reply-To: <199910090121.VAA68534@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> from Garrett Wollman at "Oct 8, 1999 09:21:53 pm" To: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 1999 17:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Cc: freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Garrett Wollman writes: > > Is there a better way to fix the problem other than simply turning the > > error report off ? > > Yes, don't put two network interfaces on one (logical) wire. Garret, I'd be interested in seeing what references you have that say having two NICs on the same wire (with NON-overlapping net ranges) is somehow broken or illegal or technically incorrect. I had always assumed this was perfectly legal, just like running AppleTalk and TCP/IP on the same wire is perfectly legal. -Archie ___________________________________________________________________________ Archie Cobbs * Whistle Communications, Inc. * http://www.whistle.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message