In the interests of education, how was the routing table messed up? Because the prefix defaulted to 8 bits, which was inconsistent with the previous routing table entry (from eth1:0)?
Just curious. - Mark -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Dubbs Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 11:52 AM To: BLFS Support List Subject: Re: Bind and Multihomed Interfaces Mark A. Olbert wrote: > Sorry, that command line got broken up. It should read as follows: > > ip addr add [2nd address]/24 broadcast [bcast address] label eth1:1 dev eth1 Yup. It was the routing table. -- Bruce -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3419 (20080905) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 3419 (20080905) __________ The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus. http://www.eset.com -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/blfs-support FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
