I'm seeing the same thing on a system which I changed the driver from ipge
to e1000g; "hardware address xxx thinks it's yyy" and so on. Is there a
definite way to get rid of this behavior other than a sys-unconfig?
On 3/14/07, Sherry Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Steven,
The aggregate link does require the ports being used to be in the same
LGA. You can run "dladm show-aggr -s" and see if both ports are being
used evenly, something like this:
-bash-3.00# dladm show-aggr -s
key: 100 ipackets rbytes opackets obytes %ipkts
%opkts
Total 947433516 7512767679121005161348887977457412
e1000g0 505752998 343937378054616165566 629853173302 53.4
61.3
e1000g1 441680519 407339389922388995784 258124284466 46.6
38.7
If not, you will need to log onto the switch and configure them.
I have seen the same message "Hareware address xxx thinks it is yyy"
when I configured my system long time ago. If I remember right, it was
due to the system still having the underlying interface exposed in some
way (you had to have picked one of the interfaces to be active when you
installed Solaris originally). I *think* I did a sys-unconfig then
select the new aggr as the interface.
Hope this helps.
Sherry
> Gurus;
>
> An attempt to configure 2 x bge ports on the Sun Fire v240 to aggregate
> their links using Solaris 10's new dladm command was "partially"
successful.
>
> We noted the following messages upon a successful reboot;
>
>
> mysolaris console login: WARNING: IP: Proxy ARP problem? Hardware
> address '00:14:4f:65:2d:86' thinks it is 192.168.023.040
> WARNING: IP: Hardware address '00:14:4f:65:2d:86' trying to be our
> address 192.168.023.040!
> Mar 14 13:14:01 inetd[223]: authdes_refresh: keyserv(1m) is unable
> to encrypt session key
> WARNING: IP: Hardware address '00:14:4f:65:2d:86' trying to be our
> address 192.168.023.040!
>
>
> dladm show-aggr indicated both ports to be fully up and running.
>
> My questions are;
>
> Does the aggregate link feature require the network administrator to
> configure a LAG for the ports on the switch?
>
> How would we know from the system side whether the network switch is
> properly configure to support the above?
>
> And lastly, is the above due to a lack of configuration on the network
> switch side or something else entirely?
>
> Warmest Regards
> Steven Sim
--
Sherry Moore, Solaris Kernel Development
http://blogs.sun.com/sherrym
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
