On 01/11/2016 09:34 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
In other words, with the address configuration given above, will
traffic from 192.168.51.200 reach 192.168.51.100 via the cross-over
cable between 192.168.51.42/192.168.51.41?
Yes.
___
CentOS mailing list
On Sat, January 9, 2016 19:48, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 01/09/2016 03:30 PM, isdtor wrote:
>> Search for policy routing.
>
> Policy routing isn't relevant.
>
> In order to communicate across a LAN, two hosts must be in the same
> broadcast domain. Hosts in 192.168.51.0/24 cannot communicate wit
On 01/09/2016 03:30 PM, isdtor wrote:
Search for policy routing.
Policy routing isn't relevant.
In order to communicate across a LAN, two hosts must be in the same
broadcast domain. Hosts in 192.168.51.0/24 cannot communicate with
hosts in 192.168.52.0/24.
_
Search for policy routing. Surprisingly, I cannot find anything about it in the
RHEL6 docs.
You don't say how exactly you tried. It should be sufficient to edit rt_tables
(maybe that's a step you missed? The actual number used doesn't matter) and add
the route-eth1/rule-eth1 files on every host
In article <55ae6ce7fe2cbdba1514f1072281c006.squir...@webmail.harte-lyne.ca>,
James B. Byrne wrote:
> I have been looking at this problem on and off for a considerable
> period. Given my lack of knowledge I have been unable to resolve this
> quickly and in consequence it has been constantly shove
I have been looking at this problem on and off for a considerable
period. Given my lack of knowledge I have been unable to resolve this
quickly and in consequence it has been constantly shoved to the
background as other issues arise.
Here is the situation:
I have two dual-homed kvm hosts both ru
6 matches
Mail list logo
