Hi,
I could be wrong, but I think this behavior is compliant with RFC 1122
Section 3.3.4.2.
Thanks,
Venkatesh
>
> Sorry I gave the same info for "eth0" twice. "eth1" is:
>
> eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:D0:B7:44:2D:41
> inet addr:172.16.130.79 Bcast:172.16.131.25
Sorry I gave the same info for "eth0" twice. "eth1" is:
eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:D0:B7:44:2D:41
inet addr:172.16.130.79 Bcast:172.16.131.255
Mask:255.255.254.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:1810 errors:0
Ok, well I have more information now (so I'm hoping this will jog
someone's memory about the same issue)...
I'll summarize first and then explain more. What appears to be happening
is if we're trying to reply to a packet that came in from an interface
that isn't the default route to a host that w
You're probably going to just tell me to upgrade but...
Anyone seen this?
We have a RedHat 6.2 system with stock kernel with two Intel
Etherexpress Pro 10/100 cards:
alias eth0 eepro100
alias eth1 eepro100
"eth0" has the IP and MAC address of:
172.16.128.79 00:B0:D0:21:A3:
