From owner-freebsd-net Fri Oct 8 22:53:55 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (mail-out1.apple.com [17.254.0.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E02314F45 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:53:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from justin@walker3.apple.com) Received: from mailgate2.apple.com ([17.129.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA13876 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:53:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by mailgate2.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 2.0.15) with ESMTP id for ; Fri, 08 Oct 1999 22:53:52 -0700 Received: from walker3.apple.com (walkeridsl1.apple.com [17.219.158.66]) by scv1.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA17924 for ; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: (from justin@localhost) by walker3.apple.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id WAA00756 for freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG; Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:53:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <199910090553.WAA00756@walker3.apple.com> To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: arp errors on machines with two interfaces In-Reply-To: "Your message of Fri, 08 Oct 1999 23:16:12 EST."<199910090416.XAA01282@cs.rice.edu> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:53:39 -0700 From: "Justin C. Walker" Reply-To: justin@apple.com X-Mailer: by Apple MailViewer (2.105.dev) Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > From: Leigh Hart > Date: 1999-10-08 22:45:42 -0700 > To: Mohit Aron > Subject: Re: arp errors on machines with two interfaces > Cc: wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu (Garrett Wollman), > freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG,alc@cs.rice.edu (Alan Cox) > In-reply-to: "Your message of Fri, 08 Oct 1999 23:16:12 > EST."<199910090416.XAA01282@cs.rice.edu> > Delivered-to: freebsd-net@freebsd.org > X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > > Hi Mohit, > > Mohit Aron wrote: > > > > > Yes, don't put two network interfaces on one (logical) wire. > > > > Brilliant! All machines in our dept are connected by switched > > 100Mbps Ethernet - so your suggestion implies that I either > > don't put two network interfaces on the machine or don't > > connect both to the network. > > > > The first would mean I cannot saturate the machine anymore in > > my experiments, and I'll leave the second to more imaginative > > minds than mine. Garrett is correct, and sarcasm doesn't help. You can't have more than one interface on a given wire, with the same subnet address, using IP. Them's the protocol rules. There are ways around this, but I don't know if FreeBSD supports them (check the archives). One involves "bonding" multiple interfaces as a single "uber channel" to the switch. It requires support in the switch, of course. The bonding lets you load balance across multiple interfaces (which look like a single interface, with a single IP address [or, more acurately, subnet], to the outside whirled). Regards, Justin -- Justin C. Walker, Curmudgeon-At-Large * Institute for General Semantics | Manager, CoreOS Networking | When crypto is outlawed, Apple Computer, Inc. | Only outlaws will have crypto. 2 Infinite Loop | Cupertino, CA 95014 | *-------------------------------------*-------------------------------* To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message