On Wed, Jan 28, 2009 at 3:23 AM, Ozzie de Leon <[email protected]> wrote: > i am NOT smarter than a fifth grader! > > IP addresses are not bound to interfaces, but to the host [which is what > everybody's been saying].
Ozzie, IP Address are bound to the NIC or logical NIC, and not the host. > so pinging the static [172.16.17.95] and the dynamic [172.16.17.15] was > actually being routed through eth0 instead of > eth1. with the cable connected to just eth1, only the static IP > [172.16.17.95] could be pinged since eth0 couldn't connect to a DHCP server > to pick up the dynamic address. Absolutely correct. And is expected behavior. However and take note, that DHCP client will set one NIC, example is eth0 as the default gateway(one default route), not eth1. 2 multiple nics on one subnet is never a good idea in the first place(google it and you'll see why.), hard to administer and hard to troubleshoot later with the network or firewall guys. To the list, let me know if you have done ip's on one subnet on two nics without bonding in dev or production.... i'm curious to know why. Just because you can does not mean you have to. That's why I mentioned about a "simple solution" and sticking to the KISS principle... two ip's on one nic and consequently, on one default gateway. Less headache. Windows does what I'm saying... if it cannot reach a dhcp server, then it sets a static ip address of 169.xxx.xxx.xxx on the NIC. From the top of my head, I think this behavior is from an RFC I read few years ago. > i guess too much video games does kill brain cells. XP regards, Andre | http://www.varon.ca _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
