[ECOS] Re: eCos Performance

[ECOS] Re: eCos Performance

[Matt Jerdonek]

These numbers don't seem reasonable to me.  Is there a
chance that something other than the performance of
the ethernet driver is at fault here?  For example,
could the RAM be setup with a different number of
wait-states (making the eCos test bed slower).  Or
could caching be enabled with Linux but disabled in
eCos?

-- Matt

>> Can you help me to improve performance of eCos
>> ethernet driver. I am
>> getting these numbers with similar test setup

>> Linux: max 26,000 packets (60 bytes) per second 
>> (single burst) with no drops
>> eCos: max 8,500 packets (60 bytes) per second
(single
>> burst) with no drops

>> I was hoping with eCos I could reach around 35,000 
>> packet/sec. Is there
>> any way I could better tune the driver to reach my 
>> goal. Thanks.


	
		
______________________________________________________
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] Re: eCos Performance

[Gary Thomas]

On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 10:23 -0700, Matt Jerdonek wrote:
> These numbers don't seem reasonable to me.  Is there a
> chance that something other than the performance of
> the ethernet driver is at fault here?  For example,
> could the RAM be setup with a different number of
> wait-states (making the eCos test bed slower).  Or
> could caching be enabled with Linux but disabled in
> eCos?

Indeed, this does seem a bit strange.

What's the platform/target?  How did you configure the network?
How did you configure the system?  What else is running?
Some device drivers have their own tunings (number & size of 
internal buffers, etc)?  If this is so on your driver, how is
it configured?

One thing to note is that the Linux stack and the eCos stack
are tuned for very different environments and are of differing
vintages (the Linux design is *years* newer than the BSD design
used in eCos).  These differences could explain quite a lot.
Also, it's normally important to measure performance in something
other than a vacuum.  Care is taken in the eCos stack not to
perturb the real-time characteristics of the system, which may
in a micro-sense cause the network to be slower.  

> 
> >> Can you help me to improve performance of eCos
> >> ethernet driver. I am
> >> getting these numbers with similar test setup
> 
> >> Linux: max 26,000 packets (60 bytes) per second 
> >> (single burst) with no drops
> >> eCos: max 8,500 packets (60 bytes) per second
> (single
> >> burst) with no drops
> 
> >> I was hoping with eCos I could reach around 35,000 
> >> packet/sec. Is there
> >> any way I could better tune the driver to reach my 
> >> goal. Thanks.


-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

[ECOS] Re: eCos Performance/ eth0,eth1 Routing problem (number of hops!)

[mkhoyila]

Indeed, it was cache enabling problem.

Here is the new numbers which are getting closer but still needs some work:

Linux: max 26,000 packets (60 bytes) per second (single burst) with no drops

eCos: max 23,500 packets (60 bytes) per second (single burst) with no drops

I DO HAVE A SETUP ISSUE which I need help. I want to route packet coming
in from IP address: 192.168.1.80 to eth0 (IP ROUTE) to eth1 and eth1 to
route to its destination ip: 192.168.2.80. As you see the purpose is to
test performance of my driver and eCos vs Linux by SmartBits. Here is an
snap-shot of my eCos route table:

UCI DEFAULT GATEWAY TABLE
Interface    Gateway IP addr         MAC addr
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------

Routing tables
Destination     Gateway         Mask            Flags    Interface
0.0.0.0         192.168.1.8     0.0.0.0         UG       eth0
127.0.0.0       127.0.0.1       255.0.0.0       UG       lo0
127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1                       U        lo0
192.168.1.0     192.168.1.0     255.255.255.0   U        eth0
192.168.2.0     192.168.2.0     255.255.255.0   U        eth1

Arp table
IP addr             MAC addr             Flags
----------------------------------------------
192.168.1.8         02:10:12:01:00:08    UHCL
192.168.1.80        00:00:00:00:00:01    UHC
192.168.2.8         02:10:12:01:00:09    UHCL
192.168.2.80        00:00:00:00:00:02    UHC

Interface statistics
IFP: eth0
IP: 192.168.1.8, Broadcast: 192.168.1.255, Netmask: 255.255.255.0
        UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU: 1500, Metric: 0
        Rx - Packets: 0, Bytes: 0, Tx - Packets: 0, Bytes: 0
IFP: eth1
IP: 192.168.2.8, Broadcast: 192.168.2.255, Netmask: 255.255.255.0
        UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU: 1500, Metric: 0
        Rx - Packets: 0, Bytes: 0, Tx - Packets: 0, Bytes: 0
IFP: lo0
IP: 127.0.0.1, Broadcast: 127.0.0.1, Netmask: 255.0.0.0
        UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MULTICAST MTU: 16384, Metric: 0
        Rx - Packets: 0, Bytes: 0, Tx - Packets: 0, Bytes: 0




The ip routing between eth0 and eth1 is NOT happening. I am starting to
think the number of "hops" is the issue. Here is initialization prints. Is
there any other issue you see. Thanks.

BOOTP[eth0] op: REPLY
       htype: Ethernet
        hlen: 6
        hops: 0
         xid: 0x0
        secs: 0
       flags: 0x0
       hw_addr: 02:10:12:01:00:08
     client IP: 192.168.1.8
         my IP: 192.168.1.8
     server IP: 192.168.1.8
    gateway IP: 192.168.1.8
  options:
        subnet mask: 255.255.255.0
       IP broadcast: 192.168.1.255
            gateway: 192.168.1.8
BOOTP[eth1] op: REPLY
       htype: Ethernet
        hlen: 6
        hops: 0
         xid: 0x0
        secs: 0
       flags: 0x0
       hw_addr: 02:10:12:01:00:09
     client IP: 192.168.2.8
         my IP: 192.168.2.8
     server IP: 192.168.2.8
    gateway IP: 192.168.2.8
  options:
        subnet mask: 255.255.255.0
       IP broadcast: 192.168.2.255
            gateway: 192.168.2.8


-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] Re: eCos Performance/ eth0,eth1 Routing problem (number of hops!)

[Gary Thomas]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 14:32 -0700, mkhoyila@uci.edu wrote: 
> Indeed, it was cache enabling problem.
> 
> Here is the new numbers which are getting closer but still needs some work:
> 
> Linux: max 26,000 packets (60 bytes) per second (single burst) with no drops
> 
> eCos: max 23,500 packets (60 bytes) per second (single burst) with no drops
> 

This is good to know.  Obviously there are some things that could be 
worked on, but it's quite close (and given the differing strategies, 
not hard to imagine)

> I DO HAVE A SETUP ISSUE which I need help. I want to route packet coming
> in from IP address: 192.168.1.80 to eth0 (IP ROUTE) to eth1 and eth1 to
> route to its destination ip: 192.168.2.80. As you see the purpose is to
> test performance of my driver and eCos vs Linux by SmartBits. Here is an
> snap-shot of my eCos route table:

What makes you think this should happen automatically?  What have you 
done to tell eCos that packets that come in on the 192.168.1.x network
should automatically flow through to the 192.168.2.x network?

I'm not sure that this would work with the BSD stack without bridging
support (which has never been ported to the latest stack)

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] Re: eCos Performance/ eth0, eth1 Routing problem (number of hops!)

[mkhoyila]

Thanks Gary. Please note my responses.

> On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 14:32 -0700, mkhoyila@uci.edu wrote:
>> Indeed, it was cache enabling problem.
>>
>> Here is the new numbers which are getting closer but still needs some
>> work:
>>
>> Linux: max 26,000 packets (60 bytes) per second (single burst) with no
>> drops
>>
>> eCos: max 23,500 packets (60 bytes) per second (single burst) with no
>> drops
>>
>
> This is good to know.  Obviously there are some things that could be
> worked on, but it's quite close (and given the differing strategies,
> not hard to imagine)
>
>> I DO HAVE A SETUP ISSUE which I need help. I want to route packet coming
>> in from IP address: 192.168.1.80 to eth0 (IP ROUTE) to eth1 and eth1 to
>> route to its destination ip: 192.168.2.80. As you see the purpose is to
>> test performance of my driver and eCos vs Linux by SmartBits. Here is an
>> snap-shot of my eCos route table:
>
> What makes you think this should happen automatically?  What have you
> done to tell eCos that packets that come in on the 192.168.1.x network
> should automatically flow through to the 192.168.2.x network?

Isn't this just pure IP routing table look up and forwarding to proper
interface?

1) source 192.168.1.80 prepare a packet with mac address of eth0 and IP
address of target (192.168.2.80) and sends it
2) eth0 receives the packet and passes it to IP layer, since the IP
address does not match the ip address of eth0, routing table should be
consulted to deliver the packet to proper interface
3) eth1 gets the packets and sends it to its target.

Shouldn't eCos do this, am I mistaken and not enabled a feature in eCos?
Here is a dump of routing table:

Routing tables
Destination     Gateway         Mask            Flags    Interface
0.0.0.0         192.168.1.8     0.0.0.0         UG       eth0
127.0.0.0       127.0.0.1       255.0.0.0       UG       lo0
127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1                       U        lo0
192.168.1.0     192.168.1.0     255.255.255.0   U        eth0
192.168.2.0     192.168.2.0     255.255.255.0   U        eth1

Arp table
IP addr             MAC addr             Flags
----------------------------------------------
192.168.1.8         02:10:12:01:00:08    UHCL
192.168.1.80        00:00:00:00:00:01    UHC
192.168.2.8         02:10:12:01:00:09    UHCL
192.168.2.80        00:00:00:00:00:02    UHC

>
> I'm not sure that this would work with the BSD stack without bridging
> support (which has never been ported to the latest stack)
>
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
> MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>



-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] Re: eCos Performance/ eth0, eth1 Routing problem (number of hops!)

[Gary Thomas]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:09 -0700, mkhoyila@uci.edu wrote:
> Thanks Gary. Please note my responses.
> 
> > On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 14:32 -0700, mkhoyila@uci.edu wrote:
> >> Indeed, it was cache enabling problem.
> >>
> >> Here is the new numbers which are getting closer but still needs some
> >> work:
> >>
> >> Linux: max 26,000 packets (60 bytes) per second (single burst) with no
> >> drops
> >>
> >> eCos: max 23,500 packets (60 bytes) per second (single burst) with no
> >> drops
> >>
> >
> > This is good to know.  Obviously there are some things that could be
> > worked on, but it's quite close (and given the differing strategies,
> > not hard to imagine)
> >
> >> I DO HAVE A SETUP ISSUE which I need help. I want to route packet coming
> >> in from IP address: 192.168.1.80 to eth0 (IP ROUTE) to eth1 and eth1 to
> >> route to its destination ip: 192.168.2.80. As you see the purpose is to
> >> test performance of my driver and eCos vs Linux by SmartBits. Here is an
> >> snap-shot of my eCos route table:
> >
> > What makes you think this should happen automatically?  What have you
> > done to tell eCos that packets that come in on the 192.168.1.x network
> > should automatically flow through to the 192.168.2.x network?
> 
> Isn't this just pure IP routing table look up and forwarding to proper
> interface?
> 
> 1) source 192.168.1.80 prepare a packet with mac address of eth0 and IP
> address of target (192.168.2.80) and sends it
> 2) eth0 receives the packet and passes it to IP layer, since the IP
> address does not match the ip address of eth0, routing table should be
> consulted to deliver the packet to proper interface
> 3) eth1 gets the packets and sends it to its target.
> 
> Shouldn't eCos do this, am I mistaken and not enabled a feature in eCos?

IIRC, only if bridging is enabled.  Of course, you could look at the 
code (just as I would have to) to verify.

In Linux, this only happens if you have such forwarding enabled, e.g.
ipv4_forward set non-zero. (2.4 kernels)

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas                 |  Consulting for the
MLB Associates              |    Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------


-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] Re: eCos Performance/ eth0, eth1 Routing problem (number of hops!)

[David Vrabel]

Gary Thomas wrote:
> 
> IIRC, only if bridging is enabled.  Of course, you could look at the 
> code (just as I would have to) to verify.

I think you mean IP forwarding rather than bridging.

David Vrabel
-- 
David Vrabel, Design Engineer

Arcom, Clifton Road           Tel: +44 (0)1223 411200 ext. 3233
Cambridge CB1 7EA, UK         Web: http://www.arcom.com/

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] eCos Performance/ eth0,eth1 Routing problem (number of hops!)

[Matt Jerdonek]

I don't see any problem with the routing tables.  It's
curious (but not necessarily problematic) that your
ethx interfaces are also the default gateways.

I have a similar setup, except I have ppp instead of
eth1.  I am able to send a ping request to the PPP
interface, and have the ping response exit the
ethernet interface.  So, I'm reasonable confident that
your setup will work.  You can verify that by pinging
the eth1 interface through the eth0 interface.

Make sure that your ping source has a default gateway
of the eth0 and the ping destination has a default
gateway of eth1.  If that's correctly setup, then I
think you're just going to have to dig into the
source.

-- Matt

--- mkhoyila@uci.edu wrote:

> Indeed, it was cache enabling problem.
> 
> Here is the new numbers which are getting closer but
> still needs some work:
> 
> Linux: max 26,000 packets (60 bytes) per second
> (single burst) with no drops
> 
> eCos: max 23,500 packets (60 bytes) per second
> (single burst) with no drops
> 
> I DO HAVE A SETUP ISSUE which I need help. I want to
> route packet coming
> in from IP address: 192.168.1.80 to eth0 (IP ROUTE)
> to eth1 and eth1 to
> route to its destination ip: 192.168.2.80. As you
> see the purpose is to
> test performance of my driver and eCos vs Linux by
> SmartBits. Here is an
> snap-shot of my eCos route table:
> 
> UCI DEFAULT GATEWAY TABLE
> Interface    Gateway IP addr         MAC addr
> --------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------
> 
> Routing tables
> Destination     Gateway         Mask           
> Flags    Interface
> 0.0.0.0         192.168.1.8     0.0.0.0         UG  
>     eth0
> 127.0.0.0       127.0.0.1       255.0.0.0       UG  
>     lo0
> 127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1                       U   
>     lo0
> 192.168.1.0     192.168.1.0     255.255.255.0   U   
>     eth0
> 192.168.2.0     192.168.2.0     255.255.255.0   U   
>     eth1
> 
> Arp table
> IP addr             MAC addr             Flags
> ----------------------------------------------
> 192.168.1.8         02:10:12:01:00:08    UHCL
> 192.168.1.80        00:00:00:00:00:01    UHC
> 192.168.2.8         02:10:12:01:00:09    UHCL
> 192.168.2.80        00:00:00:00:00:02    UHC
> 
> Interface statistics
> IFP: eth0
> IP: 192.168.1.8, Broadcast: 192.168.1.255, Netmask:
> 255.255.255.0
>         UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU: 1500,
> Metric: 0
>         Rx - Packets: 0, Bytes: 0, Tx - Packets: 0,
> Bytes: 0
> IFP: eth1
> IP: 192.168.2.8, Broadcast: 192.168.2.255, Netmask:
> 255.255.255.0
>         UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU: 1500,
> Metric: 0
>         Rx - Packets: 0, Bytes: 0, Tx - Packets: 0,
> Bytes: 0
> IFP: lo0
> IP: 127.0.0.1, Broadcast: 127.0.0.1, Netmask:
> 255.0.0.0
>         UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MULTICAST MTU: 16384,
> Metric: 0
>         Rx - Packets: 0, Bytes: 0, Tx - Packets: 0,
> Bytes: 0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The ip routing between eth0 and eth1 is NOT
> happening. I am starting to
> think the number of "hops" is the issue. Here is
> initialization prints. Is
> there any other issue you see. Thanks.
> 
> BOOTP[eth0] op: REPLY
>        htype: Ethernet
>         hlen: 6
>         hops: 0
>          xid: 0x0
>         secs: 0
>        flags: 0x0
>        hw_addr: 02:10:12:01:00:08
>      client IP: 192.168.1.8
>          my IP: 192.168.1.8
>      server IP: 192.168.1.8
>     gateway IP: 192.168.1.8
>   options:
>         subnet mask: 255.255.255.0
>        IP broadcast: 192.168.1.255
>             gateway: 192.168.1.8
> BOOTP[eth1] op: REPLY
>        htype: Ethernet
>         hlen: 6
>         hops: 0
>          xid: 0x0
>         secs: 0
>        flags: 0x0
>        hw_addr: 02:10:12:01:00:09
>      client IP: 192.168.2.8
>          my IP: 192.168.2.8
>      server IP: 192.168.2.8
>     gateway IP: 192.168.2.8
>   options:
>         subnet mask: 255.255.255.0
>        IP broadcast: 192.168.2.255
>             gateway: 192.168.2.8
> 
> 
> -- 
> Before posting, please read the FAQ:
> http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
> and search the list archive:
> http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss

Re: [ECOS] eCos Performance/ eth0,eth1 Routing problem (number of hops!)

[Roy E Richardson]

There are some separate eCos configuration items that may be worth tinkering 
with. I am in a hurry, and don't have ready access to the eCos config tool, 
so the exact names of the config items are not included, but the description 
should be enough to locate each one.

1) the tick timer list organization - sorted by time vs. non-sorted. The 
default config timing option is to use an unsorted list of timers, with an 
explanation to the effect that avoiding the overhead of a sorted by 
expiration time is more efficient.  However the unsorted method requires 
that the entire timing list be scanned for timers to execute each tick.
Use of the sorted timing list is recommended.

2) compiler optimization level - our development was also on a powerPC 
platform, and we chose level 2 for best performance (difference between 2 & 
3 is an arbitrary one, but either is much better than 0 or 1).

3) there is no mention of the level of eCos run-time checks that are 
effective on the test load - if you have not already minimized them ...

PS. I missed the discussion threads that referenced what the caching 
resolution entailed - the MPC's caching is a confusing, but extremely 
effective one - if the system startup does not currently fully utilize 
what's available to the hardware (both read and write), or portions of 
memory excluded due to occaisional flakiness,  then that's another area to 
investigate - this is from one who has "been there and done that".

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Matt Jerdonek" <maj1224@yahoo.com>
To: <mkhoyila@uci.edu>; <ecos-discuss@sources.redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [ECOS] eCos Performance/ eth0,eth1 Routing problem (number of 
hops!)


>I don't see any problem with the routing tables.  It's
> curious (but not necessarily problematic) that your
> ethx interfaces are also the default gateways.
>
> I have a similar setup, except I have ppp instead of
> eth1.  I am able to send a ping request to the PPP
> interface, and have the ping response exit the
> ethernet interface.  So, I'm reasonable confident that
> your setup will work.  You can verify that by pinging
> the eth1 interface through the eth0 interface.
>
> Make sure that your ping source has a default gateway
> of the eth0 and the ping destination has a default
> gateway of eth1.  If that's correctly setup, then I
> think you're just going to have to dig into the
> source.
>
> -- Matt
>
> --- mkhoyila@uci.edu wrote:
>
>> Indeed, it was cache enabling problem.
>>
>> Here is the new numbers which are getting closer but
>> still needs some work:
>>
>> Linux: max 26,000 packets (60 bytes) per second
>> (single burst) with no drops
>>
>> eCos: max 23,500 packets (60 bytes) per second
>> (single burst) with no drops
>>
>> I DO HAVE A SETUP ISSUE which I need help. I want to
>> route packet coming
>> in from IP address: 192.168.1.80 to eth0 (IP ROUTE)
>> to eth1 and eth1 to
>> route to its destination ip: 192.168.2.80. As you
>> see the purpose is to
>> test performance of my driver and eCos vs Linux by
>> SmartBits. Here is an
>> snap-shot of my eCos route table:
>>
>> UCI DEFAULT GATEWAY TABLE
>> Interface    Gateway IP addr         MAC addr
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> --------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Routing tables
>> Destination     Gateway         Mask
>> Flags    Interface
>> 0.0.0.0         192.168.1.8     0.0.0.0         UG
>>     eth0
>> 127.0.0.0       127.0.0.1       255.0.0.0       UG
>>     lo0
>> 127.0.0.1       127.0.0.1                       U
>>     lo0
>> 192.168.1.0     192.168.1.0     255.255.255.0   U
>>     eth0
>> 192.168.2.0     192.168.2.0     255.255.255.0   U
>>     eth1
>>
>> Arp table
>> IP addr             MAC addr             Flags
>> ----------------------------------------------
>> 192.168.1.8         02:10:12:01:00:08    UHCL
>> 192.168.1.80        00:00:00:00:00:01    UHC
>> 192.168.2.8         02:10:12:01:00:09    UHCL
>> 192.168.2.80        00:00:00:00:00:02    UHC
>>
>> Interface statistics
>> IFP: eth0
>> IP: 192.168.1.8, Broadcast: 192.168.1.255, Netmask:
>> 255.255.255.0
>>         UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU: 1500,
>> Metric: 0
>>         Rx - Packets: 0, Bytes: 0, Tx - Packets: 0,
>> Bytes: 0
>> IFP: eth1
>> IP: 192.168.2.8, Broadcast: 192.168.2.255, Netmask:
>> 255.255.255.0
>>         UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU: 1500,
>> Metric: 0
>>         Rx - Packets: 0, Bytes: 0, Tx - Packets: 0,
>> Bytes: 0
>> IFP: lo0
>> IP: 127.0.0.1, Broadcast: 127.0.0.1, Netmask:
>> 255.0.0.0
>>         UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MULTICAST MTU: 16384,
>> Metric: 0
>>         Rx - Packets: 0, Bytes: 0, Tx - Packets: 0,
>> Bytes: 0
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The ip routing between eth0 and eth1 is NOT
>> happening. I am starting to
>> think the number of "hops" is the issue. Here is
>> initialization prints. Is
>> there any other issue you see. Thanks.
>>
>> BOOTP[eth0] op: REPLY
>>        htype: Ethernet
>>         hlen: 6
>>         hops: 0
>>          xid: 0x0
>>         secs: 0
>>        flags: 0x0
>>        hw_addr: 02:10:12:01:00:08
>>      client IP: 192.168.1.8
>>          my IP: 192.168.1.8
>>      server IP: 192.168.1.8
>>     gateway IP: 192.168.1.8
>>   options:
>>         subnet mask: 255.255.255.0
>>        IP broadcast: 192.168.1.255
>>             gateway: 192.168.1.8
>> BOOTP[eth1] op: REPLY
>>        htype: Ethernet
>>         hlen: 6
>>         hops: 0
>>          xid: 0x0
>>         secs: 0
>>        flags: 0x0
>>        hw_addr: 02:10:12:01:00:09
>>      client IP: 192.168.2.8
>>          my IP: 192.168.2.8
>>      server IP: 192.168.2.8
>>     gateway IP: 192.168.2.8
>>   options:
>>         subnet mask: 255.255.255.0
>>        IP broadcast: 192.168.2.255
>>             gateway: 192.168.2.8
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Before posting, please read the FAQ:
>> http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
>> and search the list archive:
>> http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
>>
>>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> -- 
> Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
> and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss
>
> 



-- 
Before posting, please read the FAQ: http://ecos.sourceware.org/fom/ecos
and search the list archive: http://ecos.sourceware.org/ml/ecos-discuss