[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: neighbor table overflow?



Let me explain the network.

I have three systems on a home network.  Two workstations and a
gateway/web/file/mail server.  The server has two Intel pro 100 NICs.  I
install Debian 2.1 and I get the error Neighbor teble overflow when I try to
use the network.

I reinstall the system with slackware.  I use the same kernel and the very
/same etc/init.d/network file on the slackware install (renamed to
/rc.inet1).  The system works fine.  Not a single problem.  I just can't
figure it out.  I really want to use Debian, but I am forced to use
Slackware.

Funny thing is, this happens on every systems I've tried it on.  I have
available to me lots of systems.  I've used Intel, Tulip, and ne2000 NICs.

I don't know what to do.

|On 990903 00:54
|Michael Wood (wood@kingsley.co.za) wrote the following...
|
|-----Original Message-----
|From: Phill Kenoyer <phill@c0de.net>
|To: debian-firewall@lists.debian.org <debian-firewall@lists.debian.org>
|Date: 03 September 1999 08:00
|Subject: Re: neighbor table overflow?
|
|>Its starts when it boots up and trys to start programs like sendmail, and
|>never stops.  The first time the card is used it starts doing it.
|>
|>|On 990902 20:34
|>|^chewie (chewie@wookimus.net) wrote the following...
|>|
|>|On Thu, 2 Sep 1999, Phill Kenoyer wrote:
|>|
|>|> I'm trying to setup a gateway using IP Masq. on Debian.  I have the same
|>|> setup running with Slackware, but when I try to do it in Debian I get a
|>|> error:
|>|>
|>|>   neighbor table overflow
|
|I thought this error meant that the ARP cache was full.  I've seen it on a
|subnet with a large number of machines while doing "nmap -sP 172.16.32.0/20"
|
|linux/net/ipv4/route.c seems to confirm this (although I won't pretend to
|understand the code.)

-- 
                         ___________________________
                        /  / \ | \ |_    |\ | |_  |
                        \__\_/_|_/_|___o_|_\|_|___|
                            k n 0 w T h A c 0 d e


Reply to: