<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]

To: "'Dick St.Peters'" <stpeters,AT,NetHeaven,DOT,com>
Subject: RE: Road warrior configuration with proxy arp -- almost there, but no t quite!
From: David Brodbeck <DavidB,AT,mail,DOT,interclean,DOT,com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:19:34 -0400
Cc: "'cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de'" <cipe-l,AT,inka,DOT,de>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dick St.Peters [mailto:stpeters,AT,NetHeaven,DOT,com

> If I read this right, you're trying to make eth0 and cipcb0 have the
> same IP.  Additionally, you're doing it by trying to use your eth0:0
> IP as the CIPE carrier IP.

Not quite...eth0:0 and cipcb0 have the same IP.  eth0 is the CIPE carrier
IP.  My earlier description was probably a bit confusing.

> If those are correct readings, that's a configuration that will not
> work stably.  Even if you have the CIPE daemon listening on the eth0:0
> interface, it will repond via the primary eth0 interface.  It wants to
> use the eth0 IP as the carrier IP.  Sometime you can force it to use
> an alias IP for a short time, but it will revert to using the eth0 IP.

Like I mentioned above, I'm actually doing the opposite of this...will this
be stable, or does it run into the same problem?  If I have to, I'll put
another physical interface in this machine, but I'd like to avoid using up
another switch port if I can.

<< | Thread Index | >> ]    [ << | Date Index | >> ]