Daniel,
Frankly, it's still confusing. There were inconsistencies and
incomplete info in your original post that made it impossible to
provide an answer. Even this post raises questions: what do you mean
by server0 and server2? Are you talking about a webserver with
different virtual hosts perhaps?
I think that if you can describe the eth2 side completely (ip of eth2,
ip of gateway, subnets beyond gateway (i.e., not local to eth2), it
will be a simple matter to suggest a static route configuration.
-Ed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am sorry I was confusing. I was giving an example of what we expect to see
as we have this working on many of our Solaris systems. What I showed was what
it looks like on a Sun 5.10 system. Yes all queries to the eth0 interface
should go back out the eth0 interface all queries to the eth2 interface should
go back out the eth2. eth2 should NOT respond to queries for eth0, and visa
versa, since this makes it a router. This was what the linux system was
doing. No matter what we do the, eth2 if it has a default route statement
seems to respond for queries to the eth0. The default route apparently has a
slightly different meaning in Solaris than LINUX. In this case Eth2 and Eth0
do not have the same name or ip address. So server2 on eth2 should not respond
for queries for server0 on eth0. It looks to me as if there isn't a way of
getting a linux box to do this
I have tried the Red Had posted procedures and it generated errors and did not
work. These are the ones with the route-ethx statement in them. It simply
doesn't work as the instructions mention.
I have not yet tried all the suggestions posted on the forum.
Thank you for all your tips.
Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Sightler
Sent: Friday, July 25, 2008 10:12 AM
To: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 (Tikanga) discussion mailing-list
Subject: RE: [rhelv5-list] problem with multiple interfaces not a router
On Fri, 2008-07-25 at 08:25 -0400, Brian Long wrote:
I believe what the OP is saying is that he would like two default
routes. If traffic comes into eth0 from a non-local subnet, he'd like
the replies to go out eth0. If traffic comes into eth2 from a
non-local subnet, he'd like the replies to go out eth2.
I actually thought that was what he was asking for as well, and I was
going to post links about policy based routing, but then he posted a
"what we expect to see" routing table that really didn't seem to match
that statement.
Based on the routing table that he showed it seemed that he just wanted
eth0 to be the default route and eth2 to talk to devices only on it's
connected subnet.
If his network contains hundreds of subnets and he's situated this
host somewhere in the middle, setting hundreds of static routes for
eth0 and hundreds for eth2 is not a manageable solution.
Unfortunately he didn't mention his subnet layout, only his goal of
"packets coming in on an interface going out of the same interface"
which leaves a lot to interpretation.
Later,
Tom
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
_______________________________________________
rhelv5-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
