Thanks dude, it helped me. if i configure the NICs with IPs belonging to different subnets, I get ping working locally. I can see multiple routes for different subnets in NETSTAT too. Now i assume that in order to configure the NICs with the same NETWORK and make them working i need to configure the System as router.
Anyways, for now Thanks for your help .. Regards /Faizan > From: li...@jnielsen.net > To: faiz...@hotmail.com > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 15:15:46 -0500 > CC: email@example.com > Subject: Re: ping stucks/hangs on PCI 3com NIC sk0 interface but works on > builtin NIC > > On Wednesday 25 February 2009 01:11:42 pm Faizan ul haq Muhammad wrote: > > > From: li...@jnielsen.net > > > On Wednesday 25 February 2009 12:35:23 pm Faizan ul haq Muhammad > wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > I have two PCI NICs and one builtin NIC on freebsd 7.0 > > > > ifconfig shows information somthing like: > > > > > > > > bge0: flags=8843<UP, broadcast, runing, simplex, multicast>metric 0 > > > > mtu 1500 options=9b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM, VLAN_HWTAGGING. VLAN_HWCSUM> > > > > ether 00:13:21:f8:7e:56 > > > > inet 192.168.0.1 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 > > > > media: Ethernet autoselect (none) status: no carrier > > > > > > This is NIC doesn't appear to be plugged in. > > > > no it is not plugged into any other yet and if i plug it and ping it > > from an external machine, it works > > That's good. > > > > > sk0: flags=8843<UP, broadcast, runing, simplex, multicast>metric 0 > > > > mtu 1500 options=b<RXCSUM,TXCSUM, VLAN_MTU> > > > > ether 00:0a:5e:1a:69:25 > > > > inet 192.168.0.2 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.0.255 > > > > media: Ethernet autoselect (none) status: no carrier > > > > > > Neither is this one. > > > > You are right, but it does not reply to ping even if i plug this to an > > external system with crossover cable and ping from that PC. > > Still not surprising. See below. > > > that is the difference in behaviour of both NICs > > > > > > Note: bge0 is builtin NIC > > > > sk0 is 3com PCI NIC > > > > > > > > now after configuration of IPV4 Addresses, when i verify the > > > > configuration with ping > > > > > > > > if i ping bge0(ping 192.168.0.1) i get the response of success > > > > but when i ping sk0 (ping 192.168.0.2) Ping gets stuck and gives no > > > > response, neither it gives success or host unreachable or denied > > > > kinda errors.. > > > > > > Why do you want both interfaces to be configured on the same subnet? > > > > that is not required as such, I am just preparing the setup to use this > > machine a bridge and configure dummynet on this machine. > > You might try a different configuration for your testing. I suspect if you > changed the IP address of sk0 to 192.168.1.2 or similar it would behave > as you are expecting. > > > > > it just hangs over there.. and i can juz see one line of ping > > > > not proceeding anyway. and if I terminate it via CTRL C then i get > > > > statistics sumthing like 3 packets sent, 0 received and 100% > > > > loss... > > > > > > This is probably expected behavior. What does "netstat -rn" show? My > > > guess is that the route for 192.168.0.0/24 is "link#1" aka bge0 and > > > since it's not plugged in to anything that's as far as it gets. > > > > btu it does not show any other interface in netstat printout with this > > -rn switch > > > > and can you explain, how this is the expected behavior then..? > > There can only be one route at any time for any given network. When you > bring up bge0 with 192.168.0.1 a route is automatically created for > 192.168.0.0 pointing to that interface. When you then bring up sk0 with > 192.168.0.2 no additional route can be added for 192.168.0.0 since there > is already one present. Therefore ALL traffic destined for the > 192.168.0.0 network will go out via bge0. > > In order to be able to ping 192.168.0.2 _locally_ you'd either need to > connect the interfaces with a crossover cable (well, crossover isn't > strictly necessary since gigabit ethernet adapters can figure it out on > their own..) OR plug both interfaces into a switch/hub. Ping packet goes > out bge0 (according to the route), across the wire and comes in on sk0 > (destination address). The response would be delivered directly to bge0 > (without going over the wire). > > Similarly, in order to be able to ping 192.168.0.2 from a second machine > all _three_ interfaces would need to be connected to the same network > segment (via a switch/hub, etc). Ping packet goes out from peer, across > the wire and in on sk0 (destination address). Response goes out bge0 > (according to route), across the other wire and back to the peer. > > I hope this helps you make sense of things. > > JN > > _______________________________________________ > firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org" _________________________________________________________________ It’s the same Hotmail®. If by “same” you mean up to 70% faster. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_AE_Same_022009_______________________________________________ email@example.com mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-questions-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"