From owner-freebsd-net@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 15 17:12:27 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 705C916A4CE for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:12:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1280643D60 for ; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:12:27 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from scrappy@hub.org) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A853D12939B; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:12:25 -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 09306-01; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:12:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-46-186.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.186]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 116CA129399; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:12:25 -0400 (AST) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7FCE45CF5B; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:12:24 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EDE85C307; Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:12:24 -0400 (AST) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:12:24 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" To: dima <_pppp@mail.ru> In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20050315130547.W92893@ganymede.hub.org> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org cc: net@freebsd.org Subject: 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: Tue, 15 Mar 2005 17:12:27 -0000 On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, dima wrote: > This actually means you have 1 virtual interface fec0 representing 2 or > more physical interfaces. The load balancing scheme can be assigned by a > Catalyst, but low-end models like 2950 and 3550 can only balance traffic > based on the least significant bit(s) of MAC-address. 'k, definitely not what I'm looking for then ... unless I'm missing something with how alias's work? Right now, I have 2 C-classes, but theyy are assigned to the interface 'on the fly' ... so, I could have something like: 200.46.204.10 200.46.208.254 200.46.208.251 200.46.204.5 and then, after being up 15 days, might need to add yet another: 200.46.208.244 now, my understanding (which may be wrong) is that when aliasing the IPs onto the interface, they pretty much need to be 'bundled' ... if: ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.204.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 (base server) ifconfig fxp0 alias 200.46.204.10 netmask 255.255.255.255 ifconfig fxp0 alias 200.46.204.5 netmask 255.255.255.255 ifconfig fxp0 alias 200.46.208.254 netmask 255.255.255.0 ifconfig fxp0 alias 200.46.208.251 netmask 255.255.255.255 ifconfig fxp0 alias 200.46.208.244 netmask 255.255.255.255 so, I could add another 200.46.208.* to the interface, but wouldn't be able to add another 200.46.204.* to it, at least not without erasing all IPs and rebuilding the list ... If this isn't correct, please feel free to correct me ... what I'd love to be able to do is: ifconfig fxp0 inet 200.46.204.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 (base server) ifconfig fxp1 alias 200.46.208.2 netmask 255.255.255.0 (base server again) ifconfig fxp0 alias 200.46.204.10 netmask 255.255.255.255 ifconfig fxp0 alias 200.46.204.5 netmask 255.255.255.255 ifconfig fxp0 alias 200.46.208.254 netmask 255.255.255.255 ifconfig fxp0 alias 200.46.208.251 netmask 255.255.255.255 ifconfig fxp0 alias 200.46.208.244 netmask 255.255.255.255 but didn't think this was doable ... So, right now, I'm using both fxp0 and fxp1, with fxp0 handling the 200.46.204.* C-class, and fxp1 handling the 200.46.208.* C-class, so that I can easily add/remove as required ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664