Date: Mon, 12 May 2008 16:34:33 -0500 From: Derek Ragona <derek@computinginnovations.com> To: Christer Solskogen <solskogen@carebears.mine.nu>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: arplookup 0.0.0.0 failed: host is not on local network Message-ID: <6.0.0.22.2.20080512163401.026387f8@mail.computinginnovations.com> In-Reply-To: <g0aa89$q0p$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <g07lip$736$1@ger.gmane.org> <6.0.0.22.2.20080511190114.0264af00@mail.computinginnovations.com> <g09t4u$ads$1@ger.gmane.org> <g0a0aa$lip$1@ger.gmane.org> <6.0.0.22.2.20080512153543.02665c88@mail.computinginnovations.com> <g0aa89$q0p$1@ger.gmane.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 03:44 PM 5/12/2008, Christer Solskogen wrote:
>Derek Ragona wrote:
>
>>You may want to do traceroutes from the systems that do find the 0.0.0.0
>>interface. I would bet you have a default route and/or netmask sending
>>the traffic. You will get those arp messages if you run two different
>>interfaces on the same system, on the same subnet (not to be confused
>>with running multiple IP's on an interface.) Arp tries to tie an IP
>>address to a machine address, but if the reverse routing isn't correct
>>you will see these error messages.
>
>A tip from George Davidovich setting the aliases to use netmask to
>0xffffffff seems to fix the problem.
>
>--
>chs
Yes aliases should have a netmask of 255.255.255.255
-Derek
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?6.0.0.22.2.20080512163401.026387f8>