From owner-freebsd-questions Thu Feb 15 11:17:27 1996 Return-Path: owner-questions Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id LAA16463 for questions-outgoing; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 11:17:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu (halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu [18.26.0.159]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id LAA16451 for ; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 11:17:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu; (5.65/1.1.8.2/19Aug95-0530PM) id AA12826; Thu, 15 Feb 1996 14:16:41 -0500 Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 14:16:41 -0500 From: "Garrett A. Wollman" Message-Id: <9602151916.AA12826@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> To: "matthew c. mead" Cc: questions@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: proxy ARP on ethernet?? In-Reply-To: <199602151901.OAA19847@Glock.COM> References: <9602151854.AA12781@halloran-eldar.lcs.mit.edu> <199602151901.OAA19847@Glock.COM> Sender: owner-questions@FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk < said: >[I wrote:] >> No you should not be able to do so. It might be possible, but only >> because of insufficient error checking in the kernel. > Proxy arping with packet forwarding having two interfaces on the same > subnet is not supposed to be a valid option? I've know a lot of people to do > this when the provider has hubs that only allow one mac address per port... IP addresses name interfaces, not hosts. It is not valid to assign the same IP address to two interfaces. (We actually sort-of support a configuration called a ``half-router'' where this is not true, but only one of the interfaces can be multiple-access; the others have to be point-to-point. I would just as soon not support this either, but enough people use it to make desupporting in politically impossible.) -GAWollman -- Garrett A. Wollman | Shashish is simple, it's discreet, it's brief. ... wollman@lcs.mit.edu | Shashish is the bonding of hearts in spite of distance. Opinions not those of| It is a bond more powerful than absence. We like people MIT, LCS, ANA, or NSA| who like Shashish. - Claude McKenzie + Florent Vollant