From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755233AbXLSSaS (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:30:18 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752252AbXLSSaH (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:30:07 -0500 Received: from sovereign.computergmbh.de ([85.214.69.204]:57926 "EHLO sovereign.computergmbh.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751418AbXLSSaG (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:30:06 -0500 Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:30:05 +0100 (CET) From: Jan Engelhardt To: "Peters, Gordon" cc: "Gosney, JeremiX" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Sy, Dely L" Subject: RE: ARP Bug? In-Reply-To: <3A64AD58EE71B34FB333E733C62CDE3C04A83F60@orsmsx414.amr.corp.intel.com> Message-ID: References: <3A64AD58EE71B34FB333E733C62CDE3C04A83F60@orsmsx414.amr.corp.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Dec 19 2007 09:47, Peters, Gordon wrote: >Call me crazy, For top-posting, yes. :) > but if I have 2 NICs in a system and all the traffic is >going through one of them and then that one NIC cable gets pulled, the >other NIC, that half of the traffic should have been going through in >the first place, should still work. However, with this type of >functionality, it does not. Effectively both NICs are now dead even >though the cable has only been pulled from eth0. Once you pull the cable >to that "primary" NIC, all traffic stops; even when the "secondary" NIC >is up and working fine. That in my professional opinion is broken. I think you should finally reveal your interface configuration otherwise it's all smoke and mirrors.