From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1P1WJb-0003bX-L0 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 01 Oct 2010 03:29:50 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AE5FBE0D09; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 03:29:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-ww0-f41.google.com (mail-ww0-f41.google.com [74.125.82.41]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 763B7E0D09 for ; Fri, 1 Oct 2010 03:29:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwi14 with SMTP id 14so656041wwi.4 for ; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:29:34 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=Lf+1jFpVtzcy8Qs5gjHNju9iyHiMGWyhX3tZtuwWjnI=; b=mSE5yM0hQIhqWaLPm0uKSrS4HUP5AdmMZWDlkGyODvXJ/tzgyZqGpYMPTWMSus9HG0 b4hpo7gNpxpfBoB2qNvB3GXadViFitW6T0MRZtAeTKewvluXtWbVtglX8pvHKAt7W+J5 ybs8GPz6uIl3kWaXTN4OG346x7DTWmWALPUDw= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=V3uqV4YLFO6zsLoNjZSUoESjprLibLaxCcPB3oE9sCfnK8ydhQrUfDQDPFnUnhmxrx xZRv/NTsn0sr2xlCdn+XTasAzkkE71z3IWtGpuJ86pK8CKxc6RQN2dpxUPYIB/Th6YRZ lIsr8A4UEtJXwUjKJWQZ4F5Ldg6+ILgoNsVGU= Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.65.135 with SMTP id f7mr105977wed.56.1285903773276; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:29:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.21.141 with HTTP; Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:29:33 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:29:33 +1000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Problem with Having two Network Cards in System ... From: Adam Carter To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0ce0cdd29f1b47049185cdc0 X-Archives-Salt: e93755ad-983d-4cc6-bdc5-556c0c053c24 X-Archives-Hash: 05741c50f0be3739a6c9a4929576988d --000e0ce0cdd29f1b47049185cdc0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 You need to break this down into the local (connected) networks, that is, the subnet that the NIC are in and remote networks, that is, networks that are reachable via ,say, the default gateway. My first guess is the the default route is flipping back and forth as each NIC gets its address renewal.... So when you next have connectivity problems, first check that you can ping the IP address of another system on the same subnet as the NIC, and do this for both NICs. I'm guess that will work. Then try pinging a remote system and see how that correlates to where the default route is pointing, using netstat -rn. --000e0ce0cdd29f1b47049185cdc0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable You need to break this down into the local (connected) networks, that is, t= he subnet that the NIC are in and remote networks, that is, networks that a= re reachable via ,say, the default gateway. My first guess is the the defau= lt route is flipping back and forth as each NIC gets its address renewal...= .

So when you next have connectivity problems, first check that you can p= ing the IP address of another system on the same subnet as the NIC, and do = this for both NICs. I'm guess that will work. Then try pinging a remote= system and see how that correlates to where the default route is pointing,= using netstat -rn.
--000e0ce0cdd29f1b47049185cdc0--