Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Apr 2002 12:57:18 +0200 | From | Frank Louwers <> | Subject | Re: BUG: 2 NICs on same network |
| |
On Tue, Apr 23, 2002 at 01:41:35PM +0200, Vincent Guffens wrote: > I see it here too,
[CCing back to list as Vincent saw the same behaviour]
> > usermode:~# ping 192.168.0.5 > PING 192.168.0.5 (192.168.0.5): 56 data bytes > 64 bytes from 192.168.0.5: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=20.3 ms > > usermode:~# ping 192.168.0.6 > PING 192.168.0.6 (192.168.0.6): 56 data bytes > 64 bytes from 192.168.0.6: icmp_seq=0 ttl=255 time=3.5 ms > > usermode:~# arp -a > ? (192.168.0.5) at FE:FD:C0:A8:00:05 [ether] on eth0 > ? (192.168.0.6) at FE:FD:C0:A8:00:05 [ether] on eth0 > usermode:~# > > > > bash-2.05# tcpdump -e -i eth0 > tcpdump: listening on eth0 > 07:21:00.284894 fe:fd:c0:a8:0:1 Broadcast arp 42: arp who-has 192.168.0.5 tell 192.168.0.1 > 07:21:00.285020 fe:fd:c0:a8:0:5 fe:fd:c0:a8:0:1 arp 42: arp reply 192.168.0.5 is-at fe:fd:c0:a8:0:5 > 07:21:00.301634 fe:fd:c0:a8:0:5 Broadcast arp 42: arp who-has router tell 192.168.0.5 > 07:21:00.303418 fe:fd:c0:a8:0:1 fe:fd:c0:a8:0:5 ip 98: 192.168.0.1 > 192.168.0.5: icmp: echo request (DF) > 07:21:00.303589 fe:fd:c0:a8:0:5 fe:fd:c0:a8:0:1 ip 98: 192.168.0.5 > 192.168.0.1: icmp: echo reply > 07:21:01.324561 fe:fd:c0:a8:0:5 Broadcast arp 42: arp who-has router tell 192.168.0.5 > 07:21:02.364564 fe:fd:c0:a8:0:5 Broadcast arp 42: arp who-has router tell 192.168.0.5 > 07:21:03.544592 fe:fd:c0:a8:0:1 Broadcast arp 42: arp who-has 192.168.0.6 tell 192.168.0.1 > 07:21:03.544714 fe:fd:c0:a8:0:5 fe:fd:c0:a8:0:1 arp 42: arp reply 192.168.0.6 is-at fe:fd:c0:a8:0:5 <------ > > > the interface having .5 is replying on behalf of .6. It probably comes from the fact that it is not legal to put two different > interfaces in the same subnet. You should probably be using a load balancer interface or a bridge interface or subnet your /24 > . But as I imagine, you can't subnet, if you use the bridge you will have to enable stp which will disable one of the link and > if you use eql, you switch has to understand it (would probably be the best though) > > You can still add some static arp entries but it not very scalable and not very beautifull either ... > > I'm curious about what they will say on the list,
Well, load balancing or bridging is an option, but not the one I want... I will use the first nic as "normal" (firewalled, traffic shaped, ...) interface for my customer's websites, and eth1 as the "backup" and maintenance nic in case something goes wrong ...
I don't understand why it should be illegal to have to nics on the same server on the same subnet ...
Regarding static arps: am I correct these should be added to all machines on the subnet and to the router? (That last is not possible, I don't have permission to change stuff on the router)
Vriendelijke groeten, Frank Louwers
-- Openminds bvba www.openminds.be Tweebruggenstraat 16 - 9000 Gent - Belgium - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |