From owner-freebsd-hackers Thu Jul 26 23:51:23 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6825637B405; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:51:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from mindspring.com (dialup-209.245.136.132.Dial1.SanJose1.Level3.net [209.245.136.132]) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (EL-8_9_3_3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA01390; Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:49:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3B610F34.619E55CE@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2001 23:50:28 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Reply-To: tlambert2@mindspring.com X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en]C-CCK-MCD {Sony} (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chris Dillon Cc: Julian Elischer , "Eugene L. Vorokov" , Soren Kristensen , freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why two cards on the same segment... References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 Chris Dillon wrote: > > ...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 We saw the error with multiple 10.x addresses, with subnet masks which should have logically seperated the subnets, but failed to do the job correctly, when using two cards on the same segment, with different subnet masks which should have rendered them non-intersecting. I can probably get the configuration data for you, if you are truly interested (this is on a 4.3 derived system). -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message