Maybe I didn't explain clearly Michael. I realize that the one Management Port won't be visible to the OS and didn't have any expectations of that.
But that doesn't explain why the second Gig-E port isn't visible to the GUI. In fact, the OS doesn't even seem to see it. In the dmesg output, there is: eth0: Tigon3 [partno(N/A) rev a200 PHY(5722/5756)] (PCI Express) 10/100/1000Base-T Ethernet 00:23:7d:aa:56:b4 There is nothing else for a eth1. I don't think I turned it off in the BIOS, but will have to check that the next time I have to boot the machine. But all of that is kind of a moot point. It was just someone's idea to try as a fix if there was a second interface. The real problem is the management GUI using the same netmask asssigned to eth0 as the netmask for all the subinterfaces. Someone else mentioned that I'm stuck with this problem because of the company's screwed up IP scheme. I don't agree! We have some virtual servers with just 12-14 sites on them. We have a couple with over 100. It depends on the size of the sites, number of users in the domains, and services provided to them. So, some of them are assigned a /24 block of 256 addresses, some a /25, and most have /26 and /27 blocks of 64 or 32 addresses - all in the company's secondary networks. But all of them have the "management" IP (the one assigned to the box/eth0) all in a similar subnet in their primary network. This greatly simplifies management, control of who can get to the management IP, and assignment of additional addresses if needed. Because the management IP never changes and is always in that common subnet. So, that's why we do it that way. But that management IP subnet is a /28 with 16IPs. And the GUI just automatically assigns that same netmask 255.255.255.240 to the subinterfaces for all the site IPs, even if we've assigned an entire /24 network to the sites. See the problem? Suddenly, I can't use the .15 address in that /24 block, and every 16 addresses after that (the ones that would be broadcast if the /24 were broken up into /28 blocks). Chuck ---------- Original Message ----------- From: Michael Stauber <[email protected]> To: BlueOnyx General Mailing List <[email protected]> Sent: Sat, 8 Aug 2009 05:21:36 +0200 Subject: [BlueOnyx:01962] Re: IP Addressing on sites > Hi Chuck, > > > I believe that the GUI is only written to support a single network > > interface. There is no provision in it for a second one. > > Nope. The GUI checks which network interfaces are visible on the OS level and > then makes them availble in the GUI. I guess the management interface is not > visible to the OS, hence it doesn't show. > > -- > With best regards > > Michael Stauber > > _______________________________________________ > Blueonyx mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.blueonyx.it/mailman/listinfo/blueonyx ------- End of Original Message -------
_______________________________________________ Blueonyx mailing list [email protected] http://www.blueonyx.it/mailman/listinfo/blueonyx
