Well, although this is not really a solution to the problem, you can easily get round the problem with a simple firewall.
I don't know the exact commands for a 2.2 kernel - I've only really ever learnt the 2.4 netfilter stuff, but basically, you should be able to specify both destination addresses and interfaces in a rule. So you just block all traffic for on IP on one port, and for the other IP on the other port. That will force the routers to realise that only one port is valid for one IP and so on. I've not tested it, and I've not used it, but that is how I would go about fixing it. I'm glad I saw this actually, because I'm about to set up a server using a SuperMicro motherboard that has dual Intel ethernet controllers on it and am now prepared in case I hit the same problem! Please let me know if this works. Under 2.4, I'd do something like: if eth0 is for 192.168.1.1 and eth1 is for 10.0.1.1 iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -d 10.0.1.1 -j DROP iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth0 -s 10.0.1.1 -j DROP iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -d 192.168.1.1 -j DROP iptables -A OUTPUT -o eth1 -s 192.168.1.1 -j DROP Should be able to be translated into ipchains somehow... Good luck, hope this helps. Matthew On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 07:27:06PM +0300, George Karaolides wrote: > > Hi all, > > I have an Intel Nightshade server motherboard installed in an Intel server > case, running Debian 2.2r3 (potato). > > Its on-board Intel EtherExpress Pro 100 ethernet card works fine on its > own. > > When I install an Intel EtherExpress Pro 100 PCI card and configure two > ethernet interfaces, the PCI card answers to both IP addresses! > > ifconfig returns separate hardware addresses for the two interfaces, yet > when I disconnect the cable to the on-board card, both interfaces continue > to function through the PCI card! > -- Matthew Sackman Nottingham, ENGLAND --------------------------------------------------------------------- The contents of this email are intended for the indicated recipient(s) only. This may or may not be indicated in the above email as it is enormously easy to fake email addresses (see the relevant RFCs). For security reasons this email is likely to be gnupg signed. On the other hand it may not be if I forgot to do so. In any case, if you are reading this on a Windows based computer then there was no point in me doing so (provided that I remembered) as your computer is most likely being used by yourself and 2.8 other people at the same time (normally without your consent). No responsibility will be accepted by anyone for any of the contents of this email. So tough. If in doubt, go compile Mozilla. --------------------------------------------------------------------
pgp20hosBx83k.pgp
Description: PGP signature
