Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:44:04 +0100 From: "Thomas Franck" <TAFranck@gmx.net> To: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 2 NICs, SMP, weird kernel ARP messages Message-ID: <43F5E134.2791.13277DF@TAFranck.gmx.net> In-Reply-To: <43F5CA7E.8030701@mac.com> References: <43F5C931.26653.D4AD6F@TAFranck.gmx.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17 Feb 2006 at 8:07, Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Thomas Franck wrote:
> [ ... ]
> > It doesn't seem to affect the function of the server, but it's
> > mighty irritating and blows up the logs a lot... plus, I don't
> > think it's supposed to show this behaviour.. :)
> >
> > I've going through the archives & web but the threads I found
> > didn't fit my case.. :(
>
> The first two hits from Google were informative, but this is what
> you want:
the ones I found where about routing or two NICs on the same
subnet.. anyway, none seem to relate to the behaviour I had.. or
rather, give the sysctl mib in question..
> sysctl net.link.ether.inet.log_arp_wrong_iface=0
Yes.. that worked well..
> Your network would be better configured if separate subnets were
> actually in separate collision domains, by using VLANs or an
> individual hub/switch for each subnet. The error message is
> useful to those people for whom it would be a genuine sign of
> problems...
they will be seperated again once our firewall is back & running
and the standard router is taken off the net..
still, as I wrote in the reply to Dominic Marks:
Isn't the request broadcast and the reply MAC addressed?
if I'm right on that, the "problem" (it's more cosmetic, really)
shouldn't have happened, right..?
(at the moment the net looks like that:
{FreeBSD}
| |
[sw1] [sw2]
| |
[switch3]
| | |
| | {me}
|
[router]
the switch3 will be VLAN'ed again and properly connected once
the firewall is back..)
Thanks for the help..
- Thomas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43F5E134.2791.13277DF>