Martin Volf wrote: > > gypsy wrote: > ... > > gypsy> ifconfig eth0 x.x.x.96 broadcast x.x.x.111 netmask > > 255.255.255.240 > > gypsy> ifconfig eth1 x.x.x.96 broadcast x.x.x.111 netmask > > 255.255.255.240 > > I think you can't use x.x.x.96 here, because it is the address of your network > x.x.x.96/28. Useable ip addresses are .97 - .110. And you can't have the same > ip address and netmask on two interfaces. Use maybe 'netmask 255.255.255.255' > on one of them. > -- > Martin I have tried all IPs in the range, but I have not tried different netmasks. Thanks for that tip. Could you please post the output of 'route -n', 'ip route' and 'ip neigh show' as well as any 'ip route [add|del|*]' commands you run? I really believe that either the kernel thinks there are spoofed IPs or - most likely - that my routing table is junk. Here is a quote from http://www.sjdjweis.com/linux/proxyarp/ which is why I set both the same: > After you have the above steps done, you will need to configure your network cards. This step should be done off of the > network since you may end up with some conflicting addresses. Give two NIC's identical IP addresses, subnet masks, and > gateways. The IP you choose needs to be an unused address on your network. In my case, I used x.x.x.98, since my router is > at x.x.x.97. You could actually use about any address on the wire that isn't in use. gypsy _______________________________________________ LARTC mailing list / LARTC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://mailman.ds9a.nl/mailman/listinfo/lartc HOWTO: http://lartc.org/
