Re: Question concerning dual-NIC configuration
> Coming from a Network Engineering perspective, I'm interested in having > my servers be as redundant as possible. I have two NIC's in the > machine, so I would like for the "server" to be reachable over either > interface. > > To my mind, I would give a loopback interface an IP address that is the > "server" in this case. Then, each interface would have it's own subnet > and I would route over those two interfaces to the loopback for all > packets destined to the server. So, something like: > > lo1 -> 192.168.1.1/32 > ed0 -> 172.16.1.2/30ed1 -> 172.16.1.6/30 > > Then, on the router, I have a route statement for 192.168.1.1/32 over the > two interface subnets. > You could do this, but I'm not sure why you'd want to route those 2 to 1 interface. it'd be easier to make your server daemons listen on the 2 ed devices. Ken ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Question concerning dual-NIC configuration
> why would ya want to route lo1 127.0.0.1 to a 192.x.x. address ??? > seems to me that there are to many system side processes that listen or > ocmmunicate thru that...giving access or routing that traffic to a > internal address ...doesnt seem to smart to me. > -- > > I wouldn't; I was using that as an example. I would want to create a > second, separate loopback interface, much in the same way you can do on a > Cisco and then route traffic across both interfaces to the loopback. All of > the addresses would be valid. > That still doesn't seem like something you'd want to do. It doesn't really gain you anything that I can think of. Ken ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
RE: Question concerning dual-NIC configuration
why would ya want to route lo1 127.0.0.1 to a 192.x.x. address ??? seems to me that there are to many system side processes that listen or ocmmunicate thru that...giving access or routing that traffic to a internal address ...doesnt seem to smart to me. -- I wouldn't; I was using that as an example. I would want to create a second, separate loopback interface, much in the same way you can do on a Cisco and then route traffic across both interfaces to the loopback. All of the addresses would be valid. Mike ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
Re: Question concerning dual-NIC configuration
> why would ya want to route lo1 127.0.0.1 to a 192.x.x. address ??? > seems to me that there are to many system side processes that listen or > ocmmunicate thru that...giving access or routing that traffic to a > internal address ...doesnt seem to smart to me. This is basically what I just said. Ken ___ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
