From: Ted Phelps (phelps_at_dstc.edu.au)
Date: 2002-09-02 14:23:45 UTC
"Xam R. Time" may have said:
> On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, Ted Phelps wrote:
> > Kevin Matthews may have said:
> > > 20:41:06.108198 arp reply 192.168.0.3 is-at 0:3:2f:0:c5:d9
> > > 20:41:16.109242 arp who-has 192.168.0.3 tell 192.168.0.4
> > > 20:41:16.109249 arp reply 192.168.0.3 is-at 0:3:2f:0:c5:d9
> > That looks healthy. At least two computers are able to exchange
> > information via your wireless link.
> Heh, no, I can assure you that's not healthy. The issue is that he
> should not see more than a WHO-HAS and a single, directed IS-AT
> reply. Obviously there are >1 replies shown, so something is borked.
Oops, you're absolutely right. Mea culpa.
> > Possibly this is simply a routing problem? Could you tell us what
> > netstat -r says? And which machines 192.168.0.3 and 192.168.0.4 are?
> ARP is not routed, period.
I have seen this behavior recently and I'm fairly certain it turned out to be a configuration issue. Perhaps it was the 802.1d bridge... Hmmm...