Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:58:45 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:58:44 -0400 Received: from [24.93.67.52] ([24.93.67.52]:28677 "EHLO mail5.nc.rr.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:58:38 -0400 Message-ID: <3CC56883.9020506@nc.rr.com> Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 09:58:27 -0400 From: Harley Stenzel User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020313 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: BUG: 2 NICs on same network In-Reply-To: <20020423113935.A30329@openminds.be> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Frank Louwers wrote: > Hi, > > We recently stummed across a rather annoying bug when 2 nics are on > the same network. > > Our situation is this: we have a server with 2 nics, each with a > different IP on the same network, connected to the same switch. Let's > assume eth0 has ip 1.2.3.1 and eth1 has 1.2.3.2, with a both with a > netmask of 255.255.255.0. . . . > > Is this a bug or a known issue? If it is not a bug, how can it be > solved? It is a known issue with 2.4 Linux kernels and ARP. Linux will respond to arp requests for any address configured on the box on any interface that receives the arp request. Patches have been proposed in the past, but the maintainers have elected to not accept the patches on the basis that the current behavior is RFC-compliant. The behavior you describe is also RFC-compliant, and is in fact what the other OSes that I'm familiar with do. In your situation, where you have a single nic that you want to use as backup only, you could set noarp on the backup nic. Then, when you want to talk to the machine on the backup nic, you could use a static arp entry specifying the MAC address of the backup and any IP address on the box. Alternatively, you could put the NICs on different physical segments or you could dig up the proposed patches (2.4.0,2,and 12 if I remember correctly) and port them forward and apply them. > > Kind Regards, > Frank Louwers > --Harley Stenzel hstenzel@nc.rr.com - 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/