From owner-freebsd-chat Tue Feb 15 19:25:35 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (mail.wolves.k12.mo.us [207.160.214.1]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17ABA4156 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 19:21:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (cdillon@mail.wolves.k12.mo.us [207.160.214.1]) by mail.wolves.k12.mo.us (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA55519; Tue, 15 Feb 2000 21:21:59 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 21:21:59 -0600 (CST) From: Chris Dillon To: cjclark@home.com Cc: Juergen Nickelsen , Kris Kirby , chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Windows 2000 isn't that smart, but everything else is In-Reply-To: <20000215210935.C45552@cc942873-a.ewndsr1.nj.home.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 15 Feb 2000, Crist J. Clark wrote: > On Tue, Feb 15, 2000 at 09:42:11AM +0100, Juergen Nickelsen wrote: > > Kris Kirby writes: > > > > > > arp: 10.1.1.15 is on fxp0 but got reply from 00:40:05:4d:11:af on ed0 > > > > arp: 10.1.1.15 is on fxp0 but got reply from 00:40:05:4d:11:af on ed0 > > > > arp: 10.1.1.15 is on fxp0 but got reply from 00:40:05:4d:11:af on ed0 > > > > > > This is supposedly "Retail" Win2K, but it has no idea where to send ARPs. > > > Lucky for it that the gateway machine is connected across both LANs. :-) > > > > I saw this a lot from a FreeBSD box (3.4-RELEASE) that was connected > > to the same Ethernet segment with two NICs (in different logical > > networks). It really got on my nerves, and Windows 2000 was not > > involved. > > Shouldn't put two NICs from one host on one physical LAN. Hurts > network performance. I have yet to hear a good reason to do it. I can think of a good reason to do it. Attach each NIC to a switch and supply each NIC with its own IP address. It's not exactly "trunking" as you would normally think of it, but each IP address would have full use of the bandwidth available at the NIC. It would be downright silly to do it with them both attached to the same collision domain (non-switched segment), obviously. The better way to accomplish this is of course with port trunking or Cisco EtherChannel or something like that, but we don't have support for that AFAIK. -- Chris Dillon - cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us - cdillon@inter-linc.net FreeBSD: The fastest and most stable server OS on the planet. For Intel x86 and Alpha architectures. ( http://www.freebsd.org ) To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message