Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:03:10 +0000 From: Ian Dowse <iedowse@maths.tcd.ie> To: Guy Helmer <ghelmer@palisadesys.com> Cc: Alfred Perlstein <bright@wintelcom.net>, net@FreeBSD.ORG, iedowse@maths.tcd.ie Subject: Re: (forw) Two NICs In FreeBSD Message-ID: <200101041703.aa70160@salmon.maths.tcd.ie> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 04 Jan 2001 09:47:35 CST." <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101040944330.10523-100000@magellan.palisadesys.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message <Pine.LNX.4.21.0101040944330.10523-100000@magellan.palisadesys.com>, Guy Helmer writes: >I have also suggested this (a sysctl knob) within the past few weeks and >had no negative responses. However, since I have not received any >messages saying "this exists for such-and-such a reason", I vote for (a). >If you don't do it soon, I will :-) I would prefer this to be a sysctl knob, defaulting to the current behaviour. The diagnostic message is a useful indication that the routing table does not reflect reality. It is not exactly trivial to set up a useful configuration with two NICs on the same network anyway. The two interfaces must have addresses in different logical subnets, and to get the benefit of increased throughput you need to have traffic on each interface going to/from addresses on the same subnet as the interface. Simple "two cards on one network" configurations that sound like they should work usually don't, so this message is also a good indication to the user that they are doing something odd :-) (We use a hack locally where two NICs on the same network can have IPs in the same subnet, but it requires extra ARP changes, and a horrible hack to ipfw to allow the source address to influence the choice of output interface). Ian To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-net" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi? <200101041703.aa70160>