Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 10:48:55 -0500 (CDT) 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> Subject: Re: Why two cards on the same segment... Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.32.0107271046010.37703-100000@mail.wolves.k12.mo.us> In-Reply-To: <3B610F34.619E55CE@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Terry Lambert wrote: > 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<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 > > 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). Not that being 10.x addresses would matter any, but it would be interesting to look at. It wouldn't be hard for me to put another NIC in this box and play around with that scenario. What exactly was going wrong in the above setup you're talking about? -- 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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.32.0107271046010.37703-100000>