[c-nsp] ARP and less specific interface entries

[Frank Bulk]

I did do that at the time, and the debug said that it was creating an
"Incomplete" for those IP addresses.

41w1d: IP ARP: creating incomplete entry for IP address: 10.1.4.208
interface FastEthernet0.5
41w1d: IP ARP: sent req src 10.1.0.1 0009.4309.3632,
                 dst 10.1.4.208 0000.0000.0000 FastEthernet0.5
41w1d: IP ARP throttled out the ARP Request for 10.1.4.208
41w1d: IP ARP: creating incomplete entry for IP address: 10.1.50.201
interface FastEthernet0.5
41w1d: IP ARP: sent req src 10.1.0.1 0009.4309.3632,
                 dst 10.1.50.201 0000.0000.0000 FastEthernet0.5
41w1d: IP ARP: sent req src 10.1.0.1 0009.4309.3632,
                 dst 10.1.0.51 0000.0000.0000 FastEthernet0.5

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Hicks [mailto:peter.hicks at poggs.co.uk] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 2:14 AM
To: frnkblk at iname.com
Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] ARP and less specific interface entries


Frank Bulk wrote:

> Why won't overlapping subnets work on an interface? What does that have to
> do with the router's ability to ARP for an unknown MAC address? It's the
> clients that are key, right? If they have the right mask and point to the
> right gateway, the packets should be accepted by the router. And as for
the
> router forwarding traffic to the clients, if they're locally connected,
> whether they are more broadly or narrowly defined as being locally
> connected, it just needs to ARP?

Do a "debug arp" - are ARP who-has packets being broadcast for the addresses
on
one of the secondary subnets that is causing you a problem?

Do you see replies coming back?  Are they being rejected?


Peter

--
Peter Hicks | e: my.name at poggs.co.uk | g: 0xE7C839F4 | w: www.poggs.com

   A: Because it destroys the flow of the conversation
   Q: Why is top-posting bad?