From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jul 26 13:50:23 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from nyc.rr.com (nycsmtp3fb.rdc-nyc.rr.com [24.29.99.80]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4338237B407 for ; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 13:50:19 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jslivko@blinx.net) Received: from equinox ([24.168.44.136]) by nyc.rr.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.5.1877.357.35); Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:50:17 -0400 Message-ID: <001701c11614$94114000$6401a8c0@equinox> From: "Jonathan M. Slivko" To: "Chris Dillon" , References: Subject: Re: Why two cards on the same segment... Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 16:50:17 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2505.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2505.0000 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG -- Jonathan M. Slivko Blinx Networks http://www.blinx.net/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Dillon" To: "Terry Lambert" Cc: "Julian Elischer" ; "Eugene L. Vorokov" ; "Soren Kristensen" ; ; 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 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 ) > 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