Fooler, Thanks for the info... Was thinking of the *NIX way where the ip is set on the NIC.
As for the example of Apache IP-based virtual hosting, It can be done, not a problem, but people usually create virtual ip on 1 nic or on the bonded nic. Creating multiple ip address on the same address on multiple nics for me is a waste of resources. I'm not saying you're wrong or anything, Just interested to know any compelling reasons why. Worked with different companies, and I have never seen two or more ip address on the same subnet spread on different physical nics, other than of course bonding,teaming,ipmp, etc. regards, Andre | http://www.varon.ca On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:13 AM, fooler mail <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:23 AM, andrelst <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Ozzie de Leon <[email protected]> wrote: >>> i am NOT smarter than a fifth grader! >>> >>> IP addresses are not bound to interfaces, but to the host [which is what >>> everybody's been saying]. >> >> Ozzie, >> >> IP Address are bound to the NIC or logical NIC, and not the host. > > andre.. that is not the case in linux.. you can read it here regarding > to "Understanding Linux Network Internals" > > http://book.chinaunix.net/special/ebook/oreilly/Understanding_Linux_Network_Internals/0596002556/understandlni-CHP-28-SECT-4.html#understandlni-CHP-28-FN3 > > thats the reason why i still prefer xBSDs over linux because of the > technical correctness done by the xBSDs... > > seen last week another uncovered bug on the TCP/IP stack of linux and > i just made bandaid solution to circumvent this bug on our production > servers using redhat advance server both for version 4.x and 5.x.. tsk > tsk tsk > >>> so pinging the static [172.16.17.95] and the dynamic [172.16.17.15] was >>> actually being routed through eth0 instead of >>> eth1. with the cable connected to just eth1, only the static IP >>> [172.16.17.95] could be pinged since eth0 couldn't connect to a DHCP server >>> to pick up the dynamic address. >> >> Absolutely correct. And is expected behavior. However and take note, that >> DHCP client will set one NIC, example is eth0 as the default >> gateway(one default route), >> not eth1. 2 multiple nics on one subnet is never a good idea in the first >> place(google it and you'll see why.), hard to administer and hard to >> troubleshoot later with the network or firewall guys. > > no not really... as long as they understand the communications between > end to end on the same subnet... that is what ARP is all about... > >> To the list, let me know if you have done ip's on one subnet on two nics >> without >> bonding in dev or production.... i'm curious to know why. > > one example is apache's IP-based virtual hosting... to increase more > network bandwidth on a given host without resulting to mutlitple > subnets.. with the help of its networking tools.. you can redirect > traffic that if the traffic from source IP A bond to device A send to > device A.. if the traffic from source IP B bond to device B send it to > device B.. and so on and so forth... thus you are having a multiple > gateways based on the source IP address and not on the destination IP > address.. > >> Just because you can does not mean you have to. That's why I mentioned about >> a >> "simple solution" and sticking to the KISS principle... two ip's on one nic >> and >> consequently, on one default gateway. Less headache. > > well if that nic goes down.. you got a headache compare to multiple > nics.. hehehehe > > although channel bonding, CARP and other high availability technology > is out there for other solutions to his problem.. as the saying > goes... to each his own style and right tool/technology for the right > job... > >> Windows does what I'm saying... if it cannot reach a dhcp server, then >> it sets a static >> ip address of 169.xxx.xxx.xxx on the NIC. From the top of my head, I >> think this >> behavior is from an RFC I read few years ago. > > it is not static...it is still dynamic... RFC 3927 - dynamic > configuation of ipv4 link local addresses.. it is intended for zero > configuration networking... microsoft called this Automatic Private > IP Addressing (APIPA).. _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
