I have dealt with machines that have multiple network cards in them
before, but never when they were on the same subnet so this issue has
never come up before.
My problem is that I can only access one IP address at a time. I
started out using dhcp and found that if I went through the dhcp
I can offer one tiny bit of help ...
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Frank Cox thea...@sasktel.net wrote:
Incidentally, it is my current understanding that anything that I do
with an ip route command will go away on a reboot, therefore if I
somehow screw up the routing on this box
I can offer one tiny bit of help ...
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Frank Cox thea...@sasktel.net wrote:
Incidentally, it is my current understanding that anything that I do
with an ip route command will go away on a reboot, therefore if I
somehow screw up the routing on this box
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 11:33 -0500, Bob Beers wrote:
man iptables-save
That would dump the table to a file, but what would I do with the file
after that? I imagine there is a way to feed that back into the ip
command and reconfigure it, but I could do that with rc.local and avoid
one step.
Frank Cox wrote on Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:27:29 -0600:
I got rid of dhcp and set up static addresses using
system-config-network.
Can't help you on the routing back issue. Just wanted to remind you that
you can assign static IP addresses via DHCP to specific MAC addresses.
That might be easier
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 10:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
My problem is that I can only access one IP address at a time. I
started out using dhcp and found that if I went through the dhcp
song-and-dance then that address became active and the other one was
disabled, and vice versa.
I'm
On 1/20/2010 11:31 AM, Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 10:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
My problem is that I can only access one IP address at a time. I
started out using dhcp and found that if I went through the dhcp
song-and-dance then that address became active and the other one was
I'm starting to wonder if the simplest solution to this is to punt.
If I put a $40 router between eth2 and the big scary world,
then eth2 could become 192.168.whatever.whatever, and then
this routing issue would go away on its own and it could
still talk to the outside world (and
Frank,
I think the best way is to create bonding on eth1-eth2 and create an alias on
this bond interface.
If you need to use the two interfaces in same time, you can use round robin
parameter on the bonding interface.
If you need help on bonding you can use this howto :
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 09:50 -0800, R-Elists wrote:
ummm, why do the two different networks need an IP on the same
subnet ?
I have had a number of people ask me why I want this arrangement, where
I have two modems on a single outbound subnet.
This is (going to be) a server with limited upload
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Frank Cox thea...@sasktel.net wrote:
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 11:33 -0500, Bob Beers wrote:
man iptables-save
That would dump the table to a file, but what would I do with the file
after that? I imagine there is a way to feed that back into the ip
command and
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 11:48 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Why did you want this arrangement in the first place? IP routes are
normally asymmetrical by design (it's a feature). I thought you said
you already had a private address on eth0. Why do you need to
distinguish between eth1/eth2 on
I have had a number of people ask me why I want this
arrangement, where I have two modems on a single outbound subnet.
This is (going to be) a server with limited upload bandwidth.
By having two outbound connections, I can use a round robin
dns entry to share the load between the
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Bob Beers bob.be...@gmail.com wrote:
You can save your ip route commands in the
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ directory
files for each interface route-ethX. They will then be automatically
called when the
interface is brought up on reboot, or with
Incidentally, it is my current understanding that anything that I do
with an ip route command will go away on a reboot, therefore if I
somehow screw up the routing on this box completely all I have to do is
reboot it and I'll be back to what I had before. Which is not a bad
thing at the moment.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Bob Beers bob.be...@gmail.com wrote:
here's a link to a more thorough explanation:
http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/configuring-static-routes-in-debian-or-red-hat-linux-systems.html
ok, last word from me on the subject, really,
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 10:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
My problem is that I can only access one IP address at a time. I
started out using dhcp and found that if I went through the dhcp
song-and-dance then that address became active and the other one was
disabled, and vice versa.
The solution
Bob Beers wrote on Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:33:35 -0500:
man iptables-save
this won't save the routing table
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 14:25 -0500, Bob Beers wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Bob Beers bob.be...@gmail.com wrote:
here's a link to a more thorough explanation:
http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/configuring-static-routes-in-debian-or-red-hat-linux-systems.html
ok, last word from me
Frank Cox wrote:
I have dealt with machines that have multiple network cards in them
before, but never when they were on the same subnet so this issue has
never come up before.
My problem is that I can only access one IP address at a time. I
started out using dhcp and found that if I went
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 10:27 +1300, Clint Dilks wrote:
This Article should be exactly what you need
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/7291/print
That's pretty much it. I will study this some more; it's an interesting
situation and I want to understand the solution.
Thanks!
--
MELVILLE
On 1/20/2010 1:41 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 14:25 -0500, Bob Beers wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Bob Beersbob.be...@gmail.com wrote:
here's a link to a more thorough explanation:
On Wednesday 20 January 2010 13:57, Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 09:50 -0800, R-Elists wrote:
ummm, why do the two different networks need an IP on the same
subnet ?
I have had a number of people ask me why I want this arrangement, where
I have two modems on a single
On 1/20/2010 4:08 PM, Robert Spangler wrote:
On Wednesday 20 January 2010 13:57, Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 09:50 -0800, R-Elists wrote:
ummm, why do the two different networks need an IP on the same
subnet ?
I have had a number of people ask me why I want this
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 17:08 -0500, Robert Spangler wrote:
Please be aware that DNS was not designed to do what you are doing.
Yes it
will do a round-robin but is not connection aware. Lose a link and
you lose
half of the connections even though one link is still active.
I'm aware of
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 16:05 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
What's upstream? Two dsl lines from the same provider?
Cable, actually.
Can you get them provisioned on different subnets?
If I really had to I probably could; I have another modem in this same
building from them that I've had for a
26 matches
Mail list logo
