problem with devn-mpc85xx.so Driver

I’m using the “devn-mpc85xx.so Driver for Motorola MPC85XX TSEC Ethernet
controllers”, from the mpc85x0ads BSP.

Here is how I start the driver in the boot script:

io-net -dmpc85xx mac=0001af079b8b,verbose -ptcpip

waitfor /dev/io-net/en0 4
waitfor /dev/io-net/en1 4
ifconfig en0 192.168.1.40
ifconfig en1 192.168.1.41


Here are the information provided by ifconfig:

en0: flags=8c43<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,OACTIVE,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
address: 00:01:af:07:9b:8b
inet 192.168.1.40 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
en1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
address: 00:01:af:07:9b:8c
inet 192.168.1.41 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255


My problem is that I didn’t managed to use the second ethernet port.
When trying to ping from my PC, the first interface (192.168.1.40)
respond correctly, and when I try to ping with the second interface
(192.168.1.41) the traffic is physically routed to the first interface.
Same problem when connecting with telnet.

Any idea?

Hi Armand:

This is because you’ve put both interfaces in the same subnet. Try
changing the address for en1 to 192.168.2.41 instead and make sure that
you’ve got the other infrastructure set up to support the second subnet.

R.


Armand Ciejak wrote:

I’m using the “devn-mpc85xx.so Driver for Motorola MPC85XX TSEC Ethernet
controllers”, from the mpc85x0ads BSP.

Here is how I start the driver in the boot script:

io-net -dmpc85xx mac=0001af079b8b,verbose -ptcpip

waitfor /dev/io-net/en0 4
waitfor /dev/io-net/en1 4
ifconfig en0 192.168.1.40
ifconfig en1 192.168.1.41


Here are the information provided by ifconfig:

en0: flags=8c43<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,OACTIVE,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
address: 00:01:af:07:9b:8b
inet 192.168.1.40 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
en1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
address: 00:01:af:07:9b:8c
inet 192.168.1.41 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255


My problem is that I didn’t managed to use the second ethernet port.
When trying to ping from my PC, the first interface (192.168.1.40)
respond correctly, and when I try to ping with the second interface
(192.168.1.41) the traffic is physically routed to the first interface.
Same problem when connecting with telnet.

Any idea?

Why is it not possible to use both interfaces in the same subnet?


On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:37:16 +0200, Robert Craig
<rcraig_at_qnx@nowhere.com> wrote:

Hi Armand:

This is because you’ve put both interfaces in the same subnet. Try
changing the address for en1 to 192.168.2.41 instead and make sure that
you’ve got the other infrastructure set up to support the second subnet.

R.


Armand Ciejak wrote:
I’m using the “devn-mpc85xx.so Driver for Motorola MPC85XX TSEC
Ethernet controllers”, from the mpc85x0ads BSP.
Here is how I start the driver in the boot script:
io-net -dmpc85xx mac=0001af079b8b,verbose -ptcpip
waitfor /dev/io-net/en0 4
waitfor /dev/io-net/en1 4
ifconfig en0 192.168.1.40
ifconfig en1 192.168.1.41
Here are the information provided by ifconfig:
en0: flags=8c43<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,OACTIVE,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu
1500
address: 00:01:af:07:9b:8b
inet 192.168.1.40 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
en1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
address: 00:01:af:07:9b:8c
inet 192.168.1.41 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
My problem is that I didn’t managed to use the second ethernet port.
When trying to ping from my PC, the first interface (192.168.1.40)
respond correctly, and when I try to ping with the second interface
(192.168.1.41) the traffic is physically routed to the first interface.
Same problem when connecting with telnet.
Any idea?


Using Opera’s revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

I guess that technically speaking, you can (as you can see from the
result that with the two interfaces, your applications work, just not
with the interfaces you expected).

What you’re seeing essentially happens as a result of the fact that
routing is done on a network basis, not an address / interface basis.

What happens under the covers is that (with the BSD-like implementation
that we’re running at least) the first ifconfig creates a routing table
entry for the network to the first interface. The second ifconfig
doesn’t change the routing table entry since a valid one is already
present. This means that, in your case, all traffic for network
192.168.200.0 will all go through 192.168.1.40. (Try a “route get
192.168.1.40” and “route get 192.168.1.41” and you’ll see that the
interface is the same for both of them). External packets addressed to
192.168.1.41 will be received by 192.168.1.41, but any internal packets
sent to the 192.168.1.0 network will go through the first interface.

Robert.


Armand Ciejak wrote:

Why is it not possible to use both interfaces in the same subnet?


On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:37:16 +0200, Robert Craig
rcraig_at_qnx@nowhere.com> > wrote:

Hi Armand:

This is because you’ve put both interfaces in the same subnet.
Try changing the address for en1 to 192.168.2.41 instead and make
sure that you’ve got the other infrastructure set up to support the
second subnet.

R.


Armand Ciejak wrote:

I’m using the “devn-mpc85xx.so Driver for Motorola MPC85XX TSEC
Ethernet controllers”, from the mpc85x0ads BSP.
Here is how I start the driver in the boot script:
io-net -dmpc85xx mac=0001af079b8b,verbose -ptcpip
waitfor /dev/io-net/en0 4
waitfor /dev/io-net/en1 4
ifconfig en0 192.168.1.40
ifconfig en1 192.168.1.41
Here are the information provided by ifconfig:
en0: flags=8c43<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,OACTIVE,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu
1500
address: 00:01:af:07:9b:8b
inet 192.168.1.40 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
en1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
address: 00:01:af:07:9b:8c
inet 192.168.1.41 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
My problem is that I didn’t managed to use the second ethernet port.
When trying to ping from my PC, the first interface (192.168.1.40)
respond correctly, and when I try to ping with the second interface
(192.168.1.41) the traffic is physically routed to the first interface.
Same problem when connecting with telnet.
Any idea?
\

Robert Craig wrote:

I guess that technically speaking, you can (as you can see from the
result that with the two interfaces, your applications work, just not
with the interfaces you expected).

What you’re seeing essentially happens as a result of the fact that
routing is done on a network basis, not an address / interface basis.

What happens under the covers is that (with the BSD-like implementation
that we’re running at least) the first ifconfig creates a routing table
entry for the network to the first interface. The second ifconfig
doesn’t change the routing table entry since a valid one is already
present. This means that, in your case, all traffic for network
192.168.200.0 will all go through 192.168.1.40. (Try a “route get
^^^ ->typo should be 1 > :slight_smile:



192.168.1.40” and “route get 192.168.1.41” and you’ll see that the
interface is the same for both of them). External packets addressed to
192.168.1.41 will be received by 192.168.1.41, but any internal packets
sent to the 192.168.1.0 network will go through the first interface.

Robert.


Armand Ciejak wrote:

Why is it not possible to use both interfaces in the same subnet?


On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:37:16 +0200, Robert Craig
rcraig_at_qnx@nowhere.com> > wrote:

Hi Armand:

This is because you’ve put both interfaces in the same subnet.
Try changing the address for en1 to 192.168.2.41 instead and make
sure that you’ve got the other infrastructure set up to support the
second subnet.

R.


Armand Ciejak wrote:

I’m using the “devn-mpc85xx.so Driver for Motorola MPC85XX TSEC
Ethernet controllers”, from the mpc85x0ads BSP.
Here is how I start the driver in the boot script:
io-net -dmpc85xx mac=0001af079b8b,verbose -ptcpip
waitfor /dev/io-net/en0 4
waitfor /dev/io-net/en1 4
ifconfig en0 192.168.1.40
ifconfig en1 192.168.1.41
Here are the information provided by ifconfig:
en0: flags=8c43<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,OACTIVE,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST
mtu 1500
address: 00:01:af:07:9b:8b
inet 192.168.1.40 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
en1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
address: 00:01:af:07:9b:8c
inet 192.168.1.41 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
My problem is that I didn’t managed to use the second ethernet port.
When trying to ping from my PC, the first interface (192.168.1.40)
respond correctly, and when I try to ping with the second interface
(192.168.1.41) the traffic is physically routed to the first interface.
Same problem when connecting with telnet.
Any idea?

\

Is there any solution to have both interfaces in the same subnet?

Thanks for your answers, I will learn more about routing and network stuff.

Armand

Robert Craig wrote:

Robert Craig wrote:

I guess that technically speaking, you can (as you can see from the
result that with the two interfaces, your applications work, just not
with the interfaces you expected).

What you’re seeing essentially happens as a result of the fact that
routing is done on a network basis, not an address / interface basis.

What happens under the covers is that (with the BSD-like
implementation that we’re running at least) the first ifconfig creates
a routing table entry for the network to the first interface. The
second ifconfig doesn’t change the routing table entry since a valid
one is already present. This means that, in your case, all traffic
for network 192.168.200.0 will all go through 192.168.1.40. (Try a
"route get

^^^ ->typo should be 1 > :slight_smile:

192.168.1.40" and “route get 192.168.1.41” and you’ll see that the
interface is the same for both of them). External packets addressed
to 192.168.1.41 will be received by 192.168.1.41, but any internal
packets sent to the 192.168.1.0 network will go through the first
interface.

Robert.


Armand Ciejak wrote:

Why is it not possible to use both interfaces in the same subnet?


On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:37:16 +0200, Robert Craig
rcraig_at_qnx@nowhere.com> > wrote:

Hi Armand:

This is because you’ve put both interfaces in the same subnet.
Try changing the address for en1 to 192.168.2.41 instead and make
sure that you’ve got the other infrastructure set up to support the
second subnet.

R.


Armand Ciejak wrote:

I’m using the “devn-mpc85xx.so Driver for Motorola MPC85XX TSEC
Ethernet controllers”, from the mpc85x0ads BSP.
Here is how I start the driver in the boot script:
io-net -dmpc85xx mac=0001af079b8b,verbose -ptcpip
waitfor /dev/io-net/en0 4
waitfor /dev/io-net/en1 4
ifconfig en0 192.168.1.40
ifconfig en1 192.168.1.41
Here are the information provided by ifconfig:
en0: flags=8c43<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,OACTIVE,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST
mtu 1500
address: 00:01:af:07:9b:8b
inet 192.168.1.40 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
en1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
address: 00:01:af:07:9b:8c
inet 192.168.1.41 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
My problem is that I didn’t managed to use the second ethernet port.
When trying to ping from my PC, the first interface (192.168.1.40)
respond correctly, and when I try to ping with the second
interface (192.168.1.41) the traffic is physically routed to the
first interface.
Same problem when connecting with telnet.
Any idea?

Armand Ciejak <armand.ciejak@free.fr> wrote:

Is there any solution to have both interfaces in the same subnet?

Depends on what exactly do you want to archive by plug 2 interfaces into
same network?

-xtang

Thanks for your answers, I will learn more about routing and network stuff.

Armand

Robert Craig wrote:
Robert Craig wrote:

I guess that technically speaking, you can (as you can see from the
result that with the two interfaces, your applications work, just not
with the interfaces you expected).

What you’re seeing essentially happens as a result of the fact that
routing is done on a network basis, not an address / interface basis.

What happens under the covers is that (with the BSD-like
implementation that we’re running at least) the first ifconfig creates
a routing table entry for the network to the first interface. The
second ifconfig doesn’t change the routing table entry since a valid
one is already present. This means that, in your case, all traffic
for network 192.168.200.0 will all go through 192.168.1.40. (Try a
"route get

^^^ ->typo should be 1 > :slight_smile:

192.168.1.40" and “route get 192.168.1.41” and you’ll see that the
interface is the same for both of them). External packets addressed
to 192.168.1.41 will be received by 192.168.1.41, but any internal
packets sent to the 192.168.1.0 network will go through the first
interface.

Robert.


Armand Ciejak wrote:

Why is it not possible to use both interfaces in the same subnet?


On Wed, 07 Sep 2005 23:37:16 +0200, Robert Craig
rcraig_at_qnx@nowhere.com> > wrote:

Hi Armand:

This is because you’ve put both interfaces in the same subnet.
Try changing the address for en1 to 192.168.2.41 instead and make
sure that you’ve got the other infrastructure set up to support the
second subnet.

R.


Armand Ciejak wrote:

I’m using the “devn-mpc85xx.so Driver for Motorola MPC85XX TSEC
Ethernet controllers”, from the mpc85x0ads BSP.
Here is how I start the driver in the boot script:
io-net -dmpc85xx mac=0001af079b8b,verbose -ptcpip
waitfor /dev/io-net/en0 4
waitfor /dev/io-net/en1 4
ifconfig en0 192.168.1.40
ifconfig en1 192.168.1.41
Here are the information provided by ifconfig:
en0: flags=8c43<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,OACTIVE,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST
mtu 1500
address: 00:01:af:07:9b:8b
inet 192.168.1.40 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
en1: flags=8843<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,SIMPLEX,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
address: 00:01:af:07:9b:8c
inet 192.168.1.41 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast 192.168.1.255
My problem is that I didn’t managed to use the second ethernet port.
When trying to ping from my PC, the first interface (192.168.1.40)
respond correctly, and when I try to ping with the second
interface (192.168.1.41) the traffic is physically routed to the
first interface.
Same problem when connecting with telnet.
Any idea?