On Mon, Nov 21, 2005 at 08:41:31PM +0900, Kazuaki Oda wrote:
K> >On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 01:04:40AM +0900, Kazuaki Oda wrote:
K> >K> I reported a problem a few days ago that CARP backup host replies ARP
K> >K> request. This problem has been fixed, thanks. But I found one more
K> >K> problem.
K> >
Gleb Smirnoff wrote:
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 01:04:40AM +0900, Kazuaki Oda wrote:
K> I reported a problem a few days ago that CARP backup host replies ARP
K> request. This problem has been fixed, thanks. But I found one more
K> problem.
K>
K> 1) master host and backup host are connected to the
On Sun, Nov 20, 2005 at 01:04:40AM +0900, Kazuaki Oda wrote:
K> I reported a problem a few days ago that CARP backup host replies ARP
K> request. This problem has been fixed, thanks. But I found one more
K> problem.
K>
K> 1) master host and backup host are connected to the same layer 3
K>swi
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 4:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: gratuitous ARP with em interface.
>
>
> Thanks all
Thanks all for you replies.
> I haven't tried this, but I think the problem would go away if you
> changed WAIT_FOR_AUTO_NEG_DEFAULT to 0 in "if_em.h".
Changed this. Did not work.
> If u can do kernel debugging put break point at the
> "arp_ifinit" and verify if this was getting called or
> n
PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: gratuitous ARP with em interface.
>
>
> em_ioctl() has a call to ether_ioctl() which in turn calls
> arp_ifinit().
>
> Sreekanth
>
> > -Original Message-
&
#x27;;
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: gratuitous ARP with em interface.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> hi,
> I had checked the kernel code of the freeBsd. In case of fxp
> port " fxp_ether_ioctl" fucntional will be
lenius'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "'Ruslan Ermilov'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:[EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:RE: gratuitous ARP with em interface.
Could be attributed to the spanning tree in the switch.I h
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Petri Helenius
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I haven't looked that deep into why, but em is quite slow on coming
> up compared to fxp for example. Probably something to do with
> hardware re-initialization.
I haven't tried this, but I think the problem would go away
Helenius
> Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2003 4:39 AM
> To: Ruslan Ermilov
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: gratuitous ARP with em interface.
>
>
>
> I haven't looked that deep into why, but em is quite slow on
>
I haven't looked that deep into why, but em is quite slow on coming up
compared to
fxp for example. Probably something to do with hardware re-initialization.
Pete
Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 07:57:07PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
Is there a known issue with al
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 07:57:07PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Is there a known issue with alias IPs on em interfaces not sending out
> gratuitous arps ?
>
> The situation is as follows:
> I am running a custom redundancy daemon that migrates the IP address of a
> server from
On Sat, 1 Sep 2001, Paul Chvostek wrote:
> FWIW, on aliased IPs, I seem to be unable to generate the who-has arps
> unless I specify the netmask. Just doing "ifconfig if0 a.b.c.d alias"
> does not seem to be sufficient. But the actual value of the netmask
> should not affect ARP, since ARP doe
On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 12:26:15AM +0100, Joshua Goodall wrote:
> 0:a0:c9:ca:73:5f Broadcast arp 42: arp who-has 10.1.1.1 tell 10.1.1.1
>
> and is primarily used for collision detection and network-local arp-cache
> priming, but also has applications in IP address migration (a common
> high-avai
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Mitch Collinsworth wrote:
> It's not clear what Jushua is asking for, but my guess is proxy arp.
> See arp(8), in particular the -s flag.
Then I will clarify and say that what I want is precisely described in
section 4.7 of TCP/IP Illustrated Vol. 1 (Stevens) and looks like
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Joshua Goodall) writes:
> Easy question time, but I can't find it documented. How can I reliably
> (and non-destructively) trigger the sending of a single gratuitous ARP
> reply for some local IP/MAC address?
arping (from ports) and ping the broadcast address.
Terry.
To Unsu
It's not clear what Jushua is asking for, but my guess is proxy arp.
See arp(8), in particular the -s flag.
-Mitch
On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, Ruslan Ermilov wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 01:47:20PM +0100, Joshua Goodall wrote:
> >
> > Easy question time, but I can't find it documented. How can
On Tue, Aug 28, 2001 at 01:47:20PM +0100, Joshua Goodall wrote:
>
> Easy question time, but I can't find it documented. How can I reliably
> (and non-destructively) trigger the sending of a single gratuitous ARP
> reply for some local IP/MAC address?
>
Under "local", do you mean the IP assigned
18 matches
Mail list logo
