> On Thu, Oct 08, 1998 at 10:52:21AM +0100, Richard Titmuss wrote:
> > x.x.109.128 * 255.255.255.128 U 0 0 0 eth0
> > x.x.109.128 * 255.255.255.128 U 0 0 0 eth0
>
> You have two routes to this network - I don't know if this would be a
> problem though.
Yes I noticed that. I really need to update my network scripts so that
the extra route is not added but I'm trying to keep the machine working
with my 2.0.x kernel at the moment too.
> > [root]# arp -Ds x.x.109.156 eth0 pub
> > [root]#
> > [root]# cat /proc/net/arp
> > IP address HW type Flags HW address Mask
> > Device
> > x.x.109.129 0x1 0x2 00:60:83:7C:A1:00
> > * eth0
> > x.x.109.156 0x1 0xc 00:00:00:00:00:00
> > * eth0
>
> These are symptoms rather than causes, but
> - It hasn't picked up the eth0 hardware address. You could try doing it
> manually, i.e. arp -s x.x.109.156 00:47:43:33:02:09 pub
That's what I thought & what I use with 2.0.x. The network code appears
to have changed lots in 2.1.x. After searching the mailing lists I
believe that this
is now the correct behavior.
Richard
-- Richard Titmuss Email: richard@b29net.bt.co.uk B55 Rm122, BT Laboratories Martlesham Heath Tel: +44 (0)1473 640306 Ipswich, Suffolk, IP5 3RE, UK Fax: +44 (0)1473 646885 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu