Hi Marco, I don't know much about bonding, but I have done it on some RHEL5 -- well, actually Scientific Linux 5, but same thing -- machines like below. Not sure if that's considered active-passive or active-active or what, but it does fail over that way.
ifcfg-eth0/1: ---- DEVICE=eth0/1 BOOTPROTO=none ONBOOT=yes TYPE=Ethernet MASTER=bond0 SLAVE=yes ---- ifcfg-bond0: ---- DEVICE=bond0 IPADDR=216.87.206.10 NETMASK=255.255.255.192 BROADCAST=216.87.206.63 GATEWAY=216.87.206.1 ONBOOT=yes BOOTPRO=none ---- /etc/modprobe.conf: ---- alias eth0 e1000e alias eth1 e1000e alias bond0 bonding ---- There's more documentation about this here: http://backdrift.org/howtonetworkbonding I haven't looked at this in a long time, so I'm not sure how this compares to http://docs.redhat.com/docs/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/5/html/Deployment_Guide/s2-networkscripts-interfaces-chan.html Hope this helps, Horst Marco Shaw <marco.s...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm possibly looking at testing bonding in a "single network fabric" > environment. > > I was thinking of giving NIC1 IP1, NIC2 IP2, and then creating BOND0 with IP3. > > Is this do-able? All of the IPs are going to be routed through the > same networking device. I'm planning on an active-passive setup, so > when I pull the network cable on NIC1, I'd expect IP3 to be service > from NIC2. > > Marco > > _______________________________________________ > rhelv5-list mailing list > rhelv5-list@redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list rhelv5-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
