Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:50:17 -0400 From: "Jonathan M. Slivko" <jslivko@blinx.net> To: "Chris Dillon" <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us>, <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Why two cards on the same segment... Message-ID: <001701c11614$94114000$6401a8c0@equinox> References: <Pine.BSF.4.32.0107261528390.2406-100000@mail.wolves.k12.mo.us>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
-- Jonathan M. Slivko <jslivko@blinx.net> Blinx Networks http://www.blinx.net/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Dillon" <cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us> To: "Terry Lambert" <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: "Julian Elischer" <julian@elischer.org>; "Eugene L. Vorokov" <vel@bugz.infotecs.ru>; "Soren Kristensen" <soren@soekris.com>; <freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>; <freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG> Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2001 4:45 PM Subject: Re: Why two cards on the same segment... > On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Terry Lambert wrote: > > [...other stuff I've not personally encountered snipped...] > > > ...or the mess the FreeBSD alias code is in, with it demanding > > netmasks of 255.255.255.255 on aliases, so that aliases and the > > primary IP _MUST_ have the same netmask instead of different ones > > (hell, he may just be trying to have two IP's with different > > netmasks, and the only way he can do it in FreeBSD is to have two > > cards!). > > Why would you want multiple IP addresses that belong to the same IP > network to have different subnet masks? You'll break the network. > If you're saying that you can't put two or more different IP addresses > on one NIC that belong to different IP networks, then don't tell my > router that, it might decide to stop working. :-) > > fxp7: flags=8943<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,PROMISC,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 > inet 207.160.214.253 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 207.160.214.255 > inet 207.160.214.252 netmask 0xffffffff broadcast 207.160.214.252 > inet 192.168.254.254 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.254.255 > ether 00:08:c7:07:b2:96 > media: Ethernet autoselect (100baseTX <full-duplex>) > status: active > Yes, but, I think the issue with the 2 IP classes working is because one is not routable, and therefore it's not a real IP address, and the router knows this, hence it's not reacting to it by stopping to work. As long as you use virtual ip's (192.168.*.*) then there should be no reason why it wouldn't work. However, if your talking about a routable IP address, then you might have a problem, as there is a difference between a virtual IP address and a real (routable) IP address. Just my 0.02 cents. -- Jonathan > > > So, the major reasons for two cards on one segment: to work around > > bugs in FreeBSD's networking code. > > The best reason I can think of to put two cards on one segment is for > performance reasons. You'll only get a performance benefit if you're > attached to a switch, of course. I'm not talking about Fast > EtherChannel or other channel bonding or anything like that, just two > or more NICs with two or more different IP addresses. > > > -- Chris Dillon - cdillon@wolves.k12.mo.us - cdillon@inter-linc.net > FreeBSD: The fastest and most stable server OS on the planet > - Available for IA32 (Intel x86) and Alpha architectures > - IA64 (Itanium), PowerPC, and ARM architectures under development > - http://www.freebsd.org > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?001701c11614$94114000$6401a8c0>