On Saturday, Oct 26, 2002, at 20:24 US/Pacific, Julian Elischer wrote:
The answer is: None of your business. It was a simple technical question, to which I was given a simple technical answer, which made me warm and fuzzy and happy all over. There's no need to answer your irrelevant questions.Don't get snooty.. the question is :"why do you want to do that? Is it to get more bandwidth?
If you don't think my response is polite and friendly - well, you're the one who challenged the design without knowing the requirements, which is fairly rude to begin with.
Is this your attempt to get more throughput using 2 logical nets through the same switch?No.ok, then..... "why?"
See above.
I can think of a lot of reasons to have multiple physical interfaces on the same network. I didn't ask for a critique of the solution design, I asked how to stop the kernel messages. If you knew the answer, why didn't you give it? Since you apparently didn't know the answer, why didn't you simply hold your peace?I'd fork out the extra $5 for switched cable andThen you'd be as unsuccessful at meeting my requirements as you've been
connet them together directly and bypass the switch (for teh 2nd link)
(probably faster too)
unresponsive to the question I asked.
Well since you don;t SAY what your requirements are, I can only try guess.. and as you have now said hta tit is not the only valid reason I can think of, I can;t think of any other reason to do what you are trying to do.
While you're cogitating, you might ask yourself why there actually exists a sysctl switch for that setting. Apparently other people have the need to use it as well.Fortunately Mr. Bowman promptly gave me the answer below, which is exactly what was needed.which is fine but I'm stilll puzzled as to why someone would want to do that if it's not to get extra bandwidth.
<end thread>
KeS
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
