Date: Mon, 1 Sep 1997 12:31:02 -0300 (EST) From: Joao Carlos Mendes Luis <jonny@mailhost.coppe.ufrj.br> To: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: IPX problems Message-ID: <199709011531.MAA01599@gaia.coppe.ufrj.br>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, Here's an output of my ifconfig: de0: flags=ca43<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,ALLMULTI,SIMPLEX,LINK2,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 146.164.5.200 netmask 0xffffffc0 broadcast 146.164.5.255 ipx 92a405c0.8002be463b5 ether 08:00:2b:e4:63:b5 vx0: flags=8a43<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,ALLMULTI,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 146.164.63.4 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 146.164.63.255 ipx 92a43f00.60H ether 00:60:97:a7:ab:42 lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 16384 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 inet 146.164.63.193 netmask 0xffffffff Why does the vx0 interface gets the .60H node address instead of 006097a7ab42 ? This happens also on another machine: vx0: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500 inet 146.164.63.6 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 146.164.63.255 ipx 92a43f00.60H ether 00:60:97:a7:50:68 lo0: flags=8049<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 16384 inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 0xff000000 Of course, there's a conflict, because two cards cannot have the same address, at least in the same network. Both cards are 3Com 3c905. Maybe this is a problem especific to it ? Jonny -- Joao Carlos Mendes Luis jonny@gta.ufrj.br +55 21 290-4698 jonny@coppe.ufrj.br Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro UFRJ/COPPE/CISI PGP fingerprint: 29 C0 50 B9 B6 3E 58 F2 83 5F E3 26 BF 0F EA 67
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199709011531.MAA01599>