-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Juhan Kundla wrote:
> Ühel ilusal päeval [28.03.2002] kirjutas Jason Healy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> [Skip]
>
> > Again, on a shared media network (such as ethernet), you're not
> > actually balancing the load at all. Only one n
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 23:10:52 -0500
Jason Healy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope this clears things up somewhat. What you want isn't
> unreasonable, but given the way the underlying ethernet protocol is
> designed, and its interaction with IP, the kernel makes some
> assumptions that prevent you
At 1017330461s since epoch (03/28/02 03:47:41 -0500 UTC), Juhan Kundla wrote:
> Ühel ilusal päeval [28.03.2002] kirjutas Jason Healy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Only one node on an ethernet segment may broadcast at any one time,
> This is not completely true. It is quite possible to divide an
> ether
Ühel ilusal päeval [28.03.2002] kirjutas Jason Healy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[Skip]
> Again, on a shared media network (such as ethernet), you're not
> actually balancing the load at all. Only one node on an ethernet
> segment may broadcast at any one time, so there could never be a time
> where bo
> Now each of those horizontal lines is a different physical network
> segment, each with its own collision domain, so each can run at a full
> 10Mb/s independently. And, if you set up a Linux box like this, it will
> work exactly as you want it to, with no questions asked! This is what
> multi
On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 18:28:37 -0600, Shawn Yarbrough wrote:
>
>So, you cram all three 10 Mbit/s network cards into the computer and hook
>it up to the network's 10/100 hub on three seperate ports. You run an ftp
>server bound to eth0, a web server bound to eth1, and an IRC server bound
>to eth2.
> I've thought up a good example of why somebody might want to put multiple
> network cards, in one computer, all on the same network:
>
> Imagine that you have an existing 100 Mbit/s network, a fast computer not
> yet on the network, and three salvaged 10 Mbit/s network cards. Sure,
> you could
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> > I think the kernel is applying IP routing rules to ethernet ARP replies.
> > I don't think it should be doing this, because an ARP reply is clearly
> > related to a physical ethernet address. ARP has nothing to do with IP
> > networks, only wit
At 1017271717s since epoch (03/27/02 19:28:37 -0500 UTC), Shawn Yarbrough wrote:
> So, you cram all three 10 Mbit/s network cards into the computer and hook
> it up to the network's 10/100 hub on three seperate ports.
Ethernet is a shared medium. If any one of those three cards
transmits, the hub
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Well the problem with these scenarios is you can't really do this: Put two
(or more) interfaces in the same computer/router on the same multi-access
(ethernet) network and assign them IPs in the same subnet.
Historically, most platforms wouldn't allow
At 1017265404s since epoch (03/27/02 17:43:24 -0500 UTC), Shawn Yarbrough wrote:
> Or is an ARP reply actually an IP packet? Maybe it is, but I don't think
> so, I'm assuming it's an ethernet packet.
This e-mail is turning out to be *very* long. Here is the short
answer:
- ARP is an IP packet,
"Shawn" == Shawn Yarbrough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Shawn> What everybody seems to be telling me is that because IP is
Shawn> routable, ARP replies are also routable, and the kernel is
Shawn> free to mix and match IP addresses with Ethernet interfaces
Shawn> however it likes
* Shawn Yarbrough ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> > > What everybody seems to be telling me is that because IP is routable,
> > > ARP replies are also routable, and the kernel is free to mix and match
> > > IP addresses with Ethernet interfaces however it likes according to
> > > it's IP routin
I've thought up a good example of why somebody might want to put multiple
network cards, in one computer, all on the same network:
Imagine that you have an existing 100 Mbit/s network, a fast computer not
yet on the network, and three salvaged 10 Mbit/s network cards. Sure, you
could go out and b
> > What everybody seems to be telling me is that because IP is routable,
> > ARP replies are also routable, and the kernel is free to mix and match
> > IP addresses with Ethernet interfaces however it likes according to
> > it's IP routing conventions. I don't agree with this.
>
> You don't agre
At 1017239453s since epoch (03/27/02 10:30:53 -0500 UTC), Shawn Yarbrough wrote:
> What everybody seems to be telling me is that because IP is routable, ARP
> replies are also routable, and the kernel is free to mix and match IP
> addresses with Ethernet interfaces however it likes according to it'
On 26 Mar 2002 21:43:24 -0600
Shyamal Prasad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't think there is anything wrong or strange. The system knows
> that there are two routes to the network, and it is free to use either
> one as it pleases.
What everybody seems to be telling me is that because IP is ro
"Shawn" == Shawn Yarbrough <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Shawn> I have an x86 server computer containing two network cards:
Shawn> eth0 --> 192.168.1.130 eth1 --> 192.168.1.131
Shawn> Both cards work fine alone. As you can see, both cards are
Shawn> on the same network. The su
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002 20:52:05 -0500, Jason Healy wrote:
>At 1017168824s since epoch (03/26/02 14:53:44 -0500 UTC), Shawn Yarbrough
>wrote:
>
>IANAKH (I am not a kernel hacker), but I'll take a shot anyway. It's
>been a while since my networking course in college, but here's my
>theory (feel fre
At 1017168824s since epoch (03/26/02 14:53:44 -0500 UTC), Shawn Yarbrough wrote:
> What is blowing my mind is that the ping request is actually entering the
> system on the wrong interface, presumably because the system is responding
> to my switch's ARP query on the "wrong" interface.
>
> I think
> For a machine that is multihomed (has more than one IP network interface
> assigned an IP address), any of the IP addresses for the machine are
> valid and equally useable. I think your Linux system is responding in a
> reasonable way as both network interfaces are receiving ICMP echo
> requests,
If you really want the fail-over capability, you should either use a
hardware 2-port NIC or have a software program monitor the two cards.
In the case of a software program,
- assign a different IP to the second NIC card
- have a program monitor the M2 registers of the primary
On Tue, Mar 26, 2002 at 10:31:45AM -0600, Shawn Yarbrough wrote:
> I have an x86 server computer containing two network cards:
>
> eth0 --> 192.168.1.130
> eth1 --> 192.168.1.131
>
> This is NOT a router-type computer. It's just a server that I really want
> to have on the same network, twice.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Shawn Yarbrough wrote:
> I have an x86 server computer containing two network cards:
>
> eth0 --> 192.168.1.130
> eth1 --> 192.168.1.131
>
> Both cards work fine alone. As you can see, both cards are on the same
> network. The subnet mask is 255.255.255.0. I can disable eit
> eth0 --> 192.168.1.130
> eth1 --> 192.168.1.131
> The kernel seems to pick one of the cards (somewhat arbitrarily) and
> starts answering pings to BOTH addresses on the ONE card! Could this be
> some kind of ARP bug? I can physically pull the plug out of the other
> card (the one that the ke
I have an x86 server computer containing two network cards:
eth0 --> 192.168.1.130
eth1 --> 192.168.1.131
Both cards work fine alone. As you can see, both cards are on the same
network. The subnet mask is 255.255.255.0. I can disable either card
with ifdown and sucessfully ping the other card
This is Linux to Linux. Haven't tried it with Win95.
On 20 Oct, David Karlin wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> You wrote:
>> I have a Linux server setup with a hybrid cable modem (down cable/up
>> phone line)using ip masqurading. Works great.
>>
>> The puzzle is that whenever I telnet to the server from
Hi Michael,
You wrote:
> I have a Linux server setup with a hybrid cable modem (down cable/up
> phone line)using ip masqurading. Works great.
>
> The puzzle is that whenever I telnet to the server from my computer, the
> modem connects to the ISP. If the modem doesn't connect right away, the
> te
I have a Linux server setup with a hybrid cable modem (down cable/up
phone line)using ip masqurading. Works great.
The puzzle is that whenever I telnet to the server from my computer, the
modem connects to the ISP. If the modem doesn't connect right away, the
telnet session will delay starting.
29 matches
Mail list logo
