On Monday 28 February 2005 21:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 14:59:31 +1000, Jarne Cook said: > > > They are both using dhcp to the same simple network. That's right. Same > > network. They both end up with gateway=192.168.0.1, netmask=255.255.255.0. > > > > But ofcourse they do not have the same IP addresses. > > I don't suppose your network people would be willing to change it thusly: > > wired ports: gateway 192.168.0.1, netmask 255.255.255.128.0 > wireless: gateway 192.168.128.1, netmask 255.255.255.128.0 > > Or move the wireless up to 192.168.1.1 if they think that would confuse things > too much. > > There's a limit to how far we should bend over backwards to support stupid > networking decisions. 192.168 *is* a /16, might as well use it. ;) > > If they won't, you're pretty much stuck with binding applications to one > interface or another. >
If the goal is to primarily use wired link and seamlessly swith to wireless then look into bonding driver in failover mode with wired interface as primary. This way you have only one address and userspace does not notice anything. -- Dmitry - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
