Is each interface on a completely separate subnet?
I had a similar situation a while back with a Sun box that had multiple
interfaces, but at that time they were all on the same subnet. The problem
was, packets were going out the "default" interface (which, IIRC, is the
last one that gets plumbed). It didn't matter if the packets were
responses to connection that came in on a different interface, or if I had
a statci interface route to force the traffic out a different interface.
In my case, it caused havoc with RADIUS.
If memory serves, I resoved my problem by enabling interface groups. I
don't know if this will help you, but it shouldn't hurt to try (if they
aren't enabled already):
# ndd -set /dev/ip ip_enable_group_ifs 1
__Jason
On Wed, 13 Jun 2001, Bill Carlson wrote:
> Hey all,
>
> Got a puzzler here, I can't seem to track down the solution.
>
> Details:
>
> Tape server:
> 2.4.2p1, RedHat 7.1.
>
> Clients, two flavors:
>
> Redhat clients running 2.4.1.
> Solaris 2.6 clients running 2.4.1p1 and 2.4.2
>
> The problem lies with amrecover on the Solaris boxen. They are multihomed,
> meaning each machine has two interfaces that connect to seperate LANs,
> there is no routing between the LANs AT ALL. Call'em LAN A and LAN B. The
> default gateway for all multihome boxes is on LAN A, the tape server is on
> LAN B. In other words, LAN B is strictly for fast connections between the
> various servers, LAN A leads to the Net.
>
> amdump runs just fine, all clients are dumped as expected. amrecover, on
> the other hand is not happy on the Solaris boxen, I get server timeouts.
> Running a sniffer shows the Solaris box attempting to contact the tape
> server, but is stamping the packet with the IP address from LAN A, not LAN
> B! Hence the tape server tries to talk back and fails, no route.
>
> So far I've checked the following:
>
> /etc/hosts on the Solaris boxen is correct, each interface has a proper
> domain name and a reverse lookup that matches.
>
> Routing table looks fine.
>
> I'm guessing this is a bug/feature somewhere in Solaris' libc, any
> suggestions on a work around? I really don't want to multihome the tape
> server.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Carlson
>
--
