Thanks, I will look into the bonding approach. Randall Svancara Systems Administrator/DBA/Developer Main Bioinformatics Laboratory
----- Original Message ----- From: "Brother Railgun of Reason" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: "Kevin Keane" <[email protected]>, [email protected] Sent: Monday, March 8, 2010 4:49:02 AM Subject: Re: [Samba] Not another SAMBA through a firewall post On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 08:44:00PM -0800, [email protected] wrote: > Kevin, > > Thanks for the response. I was kind of thinking along the same lines > as what you described. I disabled the second NIC and every samba > started working through the firewall. I even wrote a simple perl > socket server and made the same observations as I did with Samba. > > Thanks, > > Randall Svancara It's always been a pretty good rule of thumb that you should not have two active interfaces on the same subnet in the same machine unless either they're bonded together on a single IP, or one is a listen-only monitoring interface. It will almost invariably cause problems. Even a machine dual-homed on two different but connected subnets will sometimes create issues. -- Phil Stracchino, CDK#2 DoD#299792458 ICBM: 43.5607, -71.355 [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] Renaissance Man, Unix ronin, Perl hacker, Free Stater It's not the years, it's the mileage. -- To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
