On Wed, 21 Feb 2001, dean gaudet wrote:
> > 2.2.18 and 2.4 apparently have a patch called "arpfilter"
> > integrated which should allow you to:
> >
> > # sysctl -w net.ipv4.conf.all.arpfilter=1
> >
> > to get much stricter behaviour regarding ARP replies.
>
> hmm, so i'm working with a 2.4.1-ac2
On Fri, 9 Feb 2001, Matthew Kirkwood wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, dean gaudet wrote:
>
> > responses come back from both eth0 and eth1, listing each of their
> > respective MAC addresses... it's essentially a race condition at this
> > point as to whether i'll get the right MAC address. ("right
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, dean gaudet wrote:
> responses come back from both eth0 and eth1, listing each of their
> respective MAC addresses... it's essentially a race condition at this
> point as to whether i'll get the right MAC address. ("right" means
> the MAC for server:eth1).
2.2.18 and 2.4 ap
Hi,
What you describe below is having the client mis-addressed to have
the same IP as the server. Is this what you meant?
skd
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 09:09:49PM -0800, dean gaudet wrote:
> this appears to occur with both 2.2.16 and 2.4.1.
>
> server:
>
> eth0 is 192.168.250.11 netmask 255.2
oops typo.
On Thu, 8 Feb 2001, dean gaudet wrote:
> this appears to occur with both 2.2.16 and 2.4.1.
>
> server:
>
> eth0 is 192.168.250.11 netmask 255.255.255.0
> eth1 is 192.168.251.11 netmask 255.255.255.0
>
> they're both connected to the same switch.
>
> client:
>
> eth0 is 192.168.251.11
this appears to occur with both 2.2.16 and 2.4.1.
server:
eth0 is 192.168.250.11 netmask 255.255.255.0
eth1 is 192.168.251.11 netmask 255.255.255.0
they're both connected to the same switch.
client:
eth0 is 192.168.251.11 netmask 255.255.255.0
connected to the same switch as both of server's
6 matches
Mail list logo
