On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin
wrote:
> On 4/29/11, Lucian wrote:
>> Something seems out of order with the above; may I ask what exactly
>> you are trying to achieve?
>> Unless I read it all wrong you want (i.e.) x.x.x.2 on br0 and also on
>> eth0? This cannot work.
>
> Well,
Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote on Sat, 30 Apr 2011 03:54:01 +0800:
> if they are accessible via the Internet, then it means it wasn't
> necessary to add any IP to a bridge.
FYI: the IP addresses of host and guest don't have to be in the same
subnet, e.g. your host may have a private, non-routable IP a
On 4/29/11, Lucian wrote
> So .2 works as main IP and .3 does not?
> Is your ISP doing any MAC address filtering? You may need to use a
> routed bridge then..
It turns out that I was barking up the wrong tree and chasing red herrings.
The virtualized guest definition was off by one item so its n
Benjamin Hackl wrote on Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:51:13 +0200:
> Just assign IP1 to eth0, IP2 to eth0:1, IP3 to eth0:2 and so on.
and if you really need a bridge you attach those to the bridge: br0,
br0:1, br0:2 etc. eth0 ist the *physical* interface for the bridge.
Kai
On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:51:50 +0800
Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote:
> On 4/29/11, Lucian wrote:
> > Something seems out of order with the above; may I ask what exactly
> > you are trying to achieve?
> > Unless I read it all wrong you want (i.e.) x.x.x.2 on br0 and also
> > on eth0? This cannot work.
>
Lucian wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin
> wrote:
>> On 4/29/11, Lucian wrote:
>>> Something seems out of order with the above; may I ask what exactly
>>> you are trying to achieve?
>>> Unless I read it all wrong you want (i.e.) x.x.x.2 on br0 and also on
>>> eth0? Thi
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 11:51 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin
wrote:
> On 4/29/11, Lucian wrote:
>> Something seems out of order with the above; may I ask what exactly
>> you are trying to achieve?
>> Unless I read it all wrong you want (i.e.) x.x.x.2 on br0 and also on
>> eth0? This cannot work.
>
> Well
On 4/29/11, Lucian wrote:
> Something seems out of order with the above; may I ask what exactly
> you are trying to achieve?
> Unless I read it all wrong you want (i.e.) x.x.x.2 on br0 and also on
> eth0? This cannot work.
Well, I have a physical connected to the ISP modem/router which
assigned t
On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:08 AM, Emmanuel Noobadmin
wrote:
> Is it possible to assign multiple IP addresses to a bridge the same
> way ethernet devices can?
Yes, I think you can even define whole ranges of addresses.
>
> The purpose is to accept incoming traffic for multiple public IP.
> 1 Phys
Is it possible to assign multiple IP addresses to a bridge the same
way ethernet devices can?
The purpose is to accept incoming traffic for multiple public IP.
1 Physical NIC
-> br0 (accepts incoming traffic for x.x.x.2 to x.x.x.5)
Then 3 different virtual interfaces are connected to this bridge
10 matches
Mail list logo
