Andrew McNabb wrote:
On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 11:07:12AM -0700, Hans Fugal wrote:Wouldn't that ruin the separation between the networks?Stuart, this way lies madness me thinks. Do I get geek points for pointing that out?Yep. Of course, madness kind of seemed like what Stuart was looking for.Why not just do the rational thing and use two similar but different subnets, like 192.168.0.0/24 and 192.168.1.0/24. Are you hardcoding IP addresses in whatever it is you're testing?Building on your idea, you could have both networks think that they're 192.168.0.0, but have the server call one of them 192.168.0.0 and the other 192.168.1.0. Then you could set iptables rules to mangle all incoming traffic on eth1 to be 192.168.1.0 and mangle outcoming traffic on eth1 to be 192.168.0.0.
I agree with doing the rational thing.Even if you could get such an illogical thing to work, you will forever have headaches and confusion from it. Just setup two different subnets, and a DNS with views, then reference whatever you want by the same name. Just thinking about the issues you will cause yourself with the other direction makes the bump on the back of my head itch with dread.
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
