> the cisco bonding (ng_nge from Bill Paul, though it doesn't really
> use netgraph properly) and the netgraph atm stack.
I just noticed you commit this, very cool. I'll have to play with this
as soon as it's MFC'd. -sc
--
Sean Chittenden
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "un
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Don Bowman wrote:
> > From: Julian Elischer [mailto:julian@;elischer.org]
> > > Is there support for 802.3ad in FreeBSD? This would be the best
> > > way to gang interfaces together in a standard fashion. It involves
> > > LACP (Link Aggregation Control Protocol), which prev
> From: Julian Elischer [mailto:julian@;elischer.org]
> > Is there support for 802.3ad in FreeBSD? This would be the best
> > way to gang interfaces together in a standard fashion. It involves
> > LACP (Link Aggregation Control Protocol), which prevents loops
> > @ L2 (I think its an extension of S
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Don Bowman wrote:
> From: Julian Elischer [mailto:julian@;elischer.org]
> > On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote:
>
> > > In this example, does the xl0 interface share the same MAC address?
> >
> > umm actually, yes.. sends switches insane.. :-)
> > if you don't do t
From: Julian Elischer [mailto:julian@;elischer.org]
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > In this example, does the xl0 interface share the same MAC address?
>
> umm actually, yes.. sends switches insane.. :-)
> if you don't do the step about source Mac address replacement
> then they
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> > Sean Chittenden wrote:
> > >... Can't say as its graceful, but it's certainly a poor-man's way
> > >of getting more than 100Mbps of capacity.
> >
> > have you tried thi
> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> Sean Chittenden wrote:
> >... Can't say as its graceful, but it's certainly a poor-man's way
> >of getting more than 100Mbps of capacity.
>
> have you tried this?
> http://bsdvault.net/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid
> > >>> I have two systems connected through a common network
> > >>> (switch). They each have two NICs, with one addressed on one
> > >>> IP network and the second on another. IP works fine. My
> > >>> problem is that the kernel keeps bitching about seeing the
> > >>> same MAC addresses on both
On Saturday, Oct 26, 2002, at 23:42 US/Pacific, Julian Elischer wrote:
As one of the people whio wrote lots of the code you are using I'm
trying to figure out why you are doing something that we never
designed it to do because "no-one would want to do that".
i.e. "Do we have to change any desi
On Saturday, Oct 26, 2002, at 21:36 US/Pacific, Don Bowman wrote:
This can also be seen, believe it or not, on a routed
network, if you have something like spanning tree
protocol which hasn't converged yet, but has been set
for rapid convergence (which assumes the path isn't
a loop until it disc
On Saturday, Oct 26, 2002, at 20:24 US/Pacific, Julian Elischer wrote:
Don't get snooty..
the question is :"why do you want to do that?
Is it to get more bandwidth?
The answer is: None of your business. It was a simple technical
question, to which I was given a simple technical answer, which
> From: Julian Elischer [mailto:julian@;elischer.org]
(removed as to why have two NICs on the same network,
sending for general enlightenment of the list...)
This is reasonably common in L2 switched Ethernet. You have
a device which segments the traffic just fine with
MAC learning. You have the
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Kevin Stevens wrote:
>
> On Saturday, Oct 26, 2002, at 16:20 US/Pacific, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> >
> > On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Don Bowman wrote:
> >
> >> Kevin Stevens wrote:
> >>> I have two systems connected through a common network (switch). They
> >>> each have two NI
On Saturday, Oct 26, 2002, at 16:20 US/Pacific, Julian Elischer wrote:
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Don Bowman wrote:
Kevin Stevens wrote:
I have two systems connected through a common network (switch). They
each have two NICs, with one addressed on one IP network and the
second
on another. IP wo
ECTED]>;
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sat Oct 26 19:20:12 2002
Subject: RE: Annoying ARP warning messages.
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Don Bowman wrote:
> Kevin Stevens wrote:
> > I have two systems connected through a common network (switch). They
> > each have t
On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Don Bowman wrote:
> Kevin Stevens wrote:
> > I have two systems connected through a common network (switch). They
> > each have two NICs, with one addressed on one IP network and the second
> > on another. IP works fine. My problem is that the kernel keeps
> > bitching
On Saturday, Oct 26, 2002, at 14:28 US/Pacific, Don Bowman wrote:
systcl net.link.ether.inet.log_arp_wrong_iface=0
Gee, why didn't that permutation of keystrokes occur to me? ;)
Thanks.
KeS
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the me
Kevin Stevens wrote:
> I have two systems connected through a common network (switch). They
> each have two NICs, with one addressed on one IP network and the second
> on another. IP works fine. My problem is that the kernel keeps
> bitching about seeing the same MAC addresses on both interfa
I have two systems connected through a common network (switch). They
each have two NICs, with one addressed on one IP network and the second
on another. IP works fine. My problem is that the kernel keeps
bitching about seeing the same MAC addresses on both interfaces:
Oct 26 06:15:03 babelfi
19 matches
Mail list logo
