In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Guy Helmer writes:
>I have also suggested this (a sysctl knob) within the past few weeks and
>had no negative responses. However, since I have not received any
>messages saying "this exists for such-and-such a reason", I vote for (a).
>If you don't do it soon,
On Wed, 3 Jan 2001, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> /kernel: arp: 1.2.3.4 is on dc0 but got reply from 00:00:c5:79:d0:0c on dc1
>
> Hi can we axe this message already? I see the possibility of using
> two 100mbit cards on a switch with a gig uplink to be reason enough
> to either axe it, or make it a
:51 PM
To: Alfred Perlstein
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: (forw) Two NICs In FreeBSD
I would go with (a) unless someone is religiously obsessed with having the
message stay.
Else go with (b) but see if you can fit it in with some "generic verbosity"
sysctl knob, as opposed to creati
I would go with (a) unless someone is religiously obsessed with having the
message stay.
Else go with (b) but see if you can fit it in with some "generic verbosity"
sysctl knob, as opposed to creating its own.
Later,
Bosko.
> /kernel: arp: 1.2.3.4 is on dc0 but got reply from 00:00:c5:79:d0:0c
