Quoting Mike Hunter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On May 19, "Russell Adams" wrote:
>
> > I have seen this question posted twice to the list each without any
> response.
> > Does anybody out there know if this is possible, a Yes or No, will do if
> you
> > can't offer anything else. If it is possible t
On May 19, "Russell Adams" wrote:
> I have seen this question posted twice to the list each without any response.
> Does anybody out there know if this is possible, a Yes or No, will do if you
> can't offer anything else. If it is possible then how do we get rid of the
> Arp/IP conflict problem.
Hello,
I have seen this question posted twice to the list each without any response.
Does anybody out there know if this is possible, a Yes or No, will do if you
can't offer anything else. If it is possible then how do we get rid of the
Arp/IP conflict problem.
This is what I want to do:
A tran
Hi,
I know the problem is not new, but...
I am using 4.8-RELEASE, 2 interfaces 3com 905b (xl0 and xl1), and one
RealTeck, no IP on the 3 com, one fixed IP on the rl0.
I bridge between xl0 and xl1.
Interface rl0 and xl1 are connected to the same switched ethernet
network.
Sometime, the interfac
hi, there!
> Same here. My -CURRENT system is replying to those ARP request which carry
> 0.0.0.0 as sender IP address:
>
> 14:43:33.706099 arp who-has 158.227.48.193 (ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff) tell 0.0.0.0
> 14:43:33.706152 arp reply 0.0.0.0 is-at 0:d0:b7:3e:a0:fb
>
> > I think this is because I have
On Fri, Oct 19, 2001 at 11:12:48AM +0200, Harti Brandt wrote:
> I have run tcpdump all night to find out what happens. The host receives
> an ARP request with a source address of 0.0.0.0:
>
> 18:33:51.222688 arp who-has hydra tell 0.0.0.0
> 0001 0800 0604 0001 0030 65c6 a
On Thu, 18 Oct 2001, Terry Lambert wrote:
TL>To expand a little...
TL>
TL>> That said, it's probably a good idea to never ARP for 0.0.0.0,
TL>> since a "who has" in that case is a really dumb idea, since,
TL>> as weas pointed out, it's intended to mean "this host", in the
TL>> absence of an IP ad
To expand a little...
> That said, it's probably a good idea to never ARP for 0.0.0.0,
> since a "who has" in that case is a really dumb idea, since,
> as weas pointed out, it's intended to mean "this host", in the
> absence of an IP address (i.e. 0.0.0.0 is not an IP address,
> it's a special va
"Jose M. Alcaide" wrote:
> I found something interesting: these messages are caused by ARP requests
> carrying 0.0.0.0 as the sender IP address. All of them come from Apple
> Macintosh (over 40 different machines). I am not sure whether 0.0.0.0 is a
> legal sender IP address in an ARP request; 0.0
On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 10:55:25PM -0800, Beech Rintoul wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Oct 2001, Jose M. Alcaide wrote:
> > After rebuilding the kernel two days ago (Oct 15), I am getting lots of
> > messages like these:
> >
> > arp: 00:30:65:de:99:32 is using my IP address 0.0.0.0!
> > arp: 00:0a:27:b0:a7:0
10 matches
Mail list logo
