From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 16 15:16:04 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-net@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1A8816A4CE for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:16:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B55D43D79 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:16:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86AE912931F; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:15:57 -0400 (AST) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 07461-02; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:15:57 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-46-186.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.186]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 808771291F2; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:15:56 -0400 (AST) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 6772CE7C9F; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:15:52 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C69FE7C9E; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:15:52 -0400 (AST) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 11:15:52 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: "."@babolo.ru In-Reply-To: <1110967361.940194.2803.nullmailer@cicuta.babolo.ru> Message-ID: <20050316111307.Y92893@ganymede.hub.org> References: <1110967361.940194.2803.nullmailer@cicuta.babolo.ru> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org cc: dima <_pppp@mail.ru> cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Re[2]: High ping latency using two ethernet under FreeBSD 4.11 ... X-BeenThere: freebsd-net@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Networking and TCP/IP with FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:16:04 -0000 On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 .@babolo.ru wrote: >> On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 .@babolo.ru wrote: >> >>>> but didn't think this was doable ... >>> Why not: >>> ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.204.2/24 >>> ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.208.2/24 alias >>> ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.204.10/32 alias >>> ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.204.5/32 alias >>> ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.208.254/32 alias >>> ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.208.251/32 alias >>> ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.208.244/32 alias >>> so on >>> ? >>> With the only fxp0 interface >> Great ... I have a new server going down next week that I'll try out the >> ng_fec stuff with, and the above, then ... thanks ... > If addresses and not bandwidth is reason, no need for ng_fec. 'k, I don't think bandwidth is an issue ... just started to use mrtg on the switch, to see what is going on ... I might go with ng_fec anyway, so that both ports are used semi-balanced, since I do have them attached ... Since the servers are remove, can I configure one interface as a fec device, assign its IPs over to it, then "add" the second device? Also, where do you put your start up? SAme as a regular interface, just throw it into a startup.if_fec file or something like that? Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664