Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262144AbVCBDoh (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2005 22:44:37 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262156AbVCBDoh (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2005 22:44:37 -0500 Received: from smtpout.mac.com ([17.250.248.83]:206 "EHLO smtpout.mac.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262144AbVCBDoe (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Mar 2005 22:44:34 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200503021327.31429.jcook@siliconriver.com.au> References: <200502281459.31402.jcook@siliconriver.com.au> <200503010202.j2122b80025303@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <200502282135.35405.dtor_core@ameritech.net> <200503021327.31429.jcook@siliconriver.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: <5DFD93E4-8ACD-11D9-858B-000393ACC76E@mac.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Kyle Moffett Subject: Re: Complicated networking problem Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2005 22:44:23 -0500 To: Jarne Cook X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2060 Lines: 62 On Mar 01, 2005, at 22:27, Jarne Cook wrote: > Damn > > Having to configure the interfaces using bonding was not really the > answer I > was expecting. > > I did not think linux would be that rigid. I figured if poodoze is > able to do > it (seamlessly mind you), surely linux (with some tinkering) would be > able to > do it also. > > The goal was to have the networking on the laptop work as perfectly as > crapdoze does. > > Perhaps I should and this topic to my list of software issues that > no-one else > cares about. "man that list is getting big". maybe one day I'll > develop the > balls to get deep into the code. Well, what exactly is the desired behavior for you? If you have two network interfaces to the same local network, the default config will pick a random one (They're both equal-cost unless you tell it otherwise) and send ARPs and everything else through that one interface. If you take it down, it may require a minute or so to update the rest of the network to the new hardware address, but eventually they will figure it out. I suppose if that is the expected config, you could tell the box to send out a gratuitous ARP packet when you reconfigure interfaces, but that's a userspace issue in any case. As far as networking is concerned, a subnet is an atomic networking unit. Everything on it is considered directly and equally attached to everything else, unless informed otherwise via a switch protocol. Any system that doesn't follow that rule is broken. Cheers, Kyle Moffett -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCM/CS/IT/U d- s++: a18 C++++>$ UB/L/X/*++++(+)>$ P+++(++++)>$ L++++(+++) E W++(+) N+++(++) o? K? w--- O? M++ V? PS+() PE+(-) Y+ PGP+++ t+(+++) 5 X R? tv-(--) b++++(++) DI+ D+ G e->++++$ h!*()>++$ r !y?(-) ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/