On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 6:28 PM, Dinesh Kumar Rajagopal<[email protected]> wrote: > Yes as you said , i have ping from another Server. here is the output > > > arping -b 67.201.12.59 > ARPING 67.201.12.59 from 67.201.12.44 eth0 > Unicast reply from 67.201.12.59 [00:0C:29:64:9A:17] 3.528ms > Unicast reply from 67.201.12.59 [00:0C:29:64:9A:17] 0.726ms > Unicast reply from 67.201.12.59 [00:0C:29:64:9A:17] 3.568ms > Unicast reply from 67.201.12.59 [00:0C:29:64:9A:17] 0.922ms > Unicast reply from 67.201.12.59 [00:0C:29:64:9A:17] 0.843ms > Unicast reply from 67.201.12.59 [00:0C:29:64:9A:17] 1.083ms > Unicast reply from 67.201.12.59 [00:0C:29:64:9A:17] 0.845ms > Unicast reply from 67.201.12.59 [00:0C:29:64:9A:17] 0.851ms > Unicast reply from 67.201.12.59 [00:0C:29:64:9A:17] 0.997ms > Unicast reply from 67.201.12.59 [00:0C:29:64:9A:17] 0.796ms > Unicast reply from 67.201.12.59 [00:0C:29:64:9A:17] 0.871ms > Unicast reply from 67.201.12.59 [00:0C:29:64:9A:17] 0.760ms > Sent 12 probes (12 broadcast(s)) > Received 12 response(s) > > the above mac address and 10.10.10.115 HWaddr are same 00:0C:29:64:9A:17.
This means the same card has been assigned both the addresses. The secondary address eth0:1 also must show up in ifconfig. Am surprised that is not seen. Maybe, like Raman said, network manager may be the culprit. I've not seen such behaviour earlier. But then, I've used self packaged minimal linux for such use and so am unaware of nuances/ surprises one might see in some distributions. -- Mohan Sundaram. _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, email [email protected] with "unsubscribe <password> <address>" in the subject or body of the message. http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
