From owner-freebsd-net Sat Oct 9 14:37:33 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from cs.rice.edu (cs.rice.edu [128.42.1.30]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1B3214D75 for ; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 14:37:12 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from aron@cs.rice.edu) Received: (from aron@localhost) by cs.rice.edu (8.9.0/8.9.0) id QAA11776; Sat, 9 Oct 1999 16:37:00 -0500 (CDT) From: Mohit Aron Message-Id: <199910092137.QAA11776@cs.rice.edu> Subject: Re: arp errors on machines with two interfaces To: sthaug@nethelp.no, freebsd-net@freebsd.org, justin@apple.com, alc@cs.rice.edu, wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu Date: Sat, 9 Oct 1999 16:37:00 -0500 (CDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL25] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > - Because getting the advantage of this higher bandwidth requires special > support (e.g. Fast Etherchannel or other forms of load balancing/bundling) > that FreeBSD doesn't currently have in the standard configuration. It > would require considerably more than just removing one error message to > support this properly. > What you're suggesting requires the following: 1) Support in the switch for load-balancing incoming packets to the multiple interfaces on the host (each having the same IP address). 2) OS support for allowing same IP address to be present on multiple interfaces. Why go for the above costly solution when the same effect can simply be achieved by connecting multiple interfaces with different IP addresses with the vanilla OS ? Also as Julian remarked, many high-end servers already use the configuration that I'm using. I'm not aware of any specs that conflict with this configuration either. - Mohit To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message