W dniu 14.09.2018 o 10:25, Deventer-2, M.S.J. van pisze:
> this has nothing to do with CentOS but with your router which does not
> support using the public IP from inside your network (which is quite
> common).
> If the port is open on your router when you access it from another
> public IP then
Hi,
this has nothing to do with CentOS but with your router which does not
support using the public IP from inside your network (which is quite
common).
If the port is open on your router when you access it from another
public IP then all is well.
Regards,
Michel
On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 09:43
W dniu 13.09.2018 o 22:19, Oleg Cherkasov pisze:
> On 13. sep. 2018 21:02, Marcin Trendota wrote:
>>
>> There is nginx on port 80.
>> I've turned off SELinux for testing purposes.
>>
>> [root@chamber ~]# nmap chamber -p80
>> [...]
>> PORT STATE SERVICE
>> 80/tcp open http
>>
>> [root@chamber
On 13. sep. 2018 21:02, Marcin Trendota wrote:
There is nginx on port 80.
I've turned off SELinux for testing purposes.
[root@chamber ~]# nmap chamber -p80
[...]
PORT STATE SERVICE
80/tcp open http
[root@chamber ~]# nmap -p80 chmura.
[...]
PORT STATE SERVICE
80/tcp closed http
Do a
Hello all
I have weird problem i can't understand and don't know where to look.
[root@chamber ~]# ip addr
1: lo: mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN
group default qlen 1000
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
valid_lft forever
On 30/12/2015 18:37, Joey wrote:
Hello,
i follow your discussion. The first 2 posts using multiple default
routes solve my problem perfect.
Thank you all.
J
Thanks for clearing it out Joey!
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
Hello,
i follow your discussion. The first 2 posts using multiple default
routes solve my problem perfect.
Thank you all.
J
Am 2015-12-30 17:21, schrieb Eliezer Croitoru:
On 30/12/2015 10:22, Paul R. Ganci wrote:
On 12/30/2015 12:44 AM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
"I want that the request
On 30/12/2015 10:22, Paul R. Ganci wrote:
On 12/30/2015 12:44 AM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
"I want that the request of incoming traffic dont use the default
gateway. Incoming traffic sould be answered using the gateway of the
incoming device "
I'm sorry but I have been following this thread
I'm struggling to understand what you meant when you said that the
destination is the gateway. If you just mean that the traffic is
NATed, then again, I was not assuming that in any of my explanations.
I said that, assuming the host with 2 public ips mentioned in the OP
could be the gateway
On 12/30/2015 12:44 AM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
"I want that the request of incoming traffic dont use the default
gateway. Incoming traffic sould be answered using the gateway of the
incoming device "
I'm sorry but I have been following this thread for a while and
everything that Gordon
On 28/12/2015 22:47, Gordon Messmer wrote:
Can you explain what you mean? Not only am I not assuming that, I can
hardly conceive of any situation in which a host will receive traffic
for its own gateway.
... Basic 1:1 NAT ... you have two gateways while you have two ip
addresses or one on
On 12/29/2015 07:18 AM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
... Basic 1:1 NAT ... you have two gateways while you have two ip
addresses or one on the interface.
Just to illustrate the issue: AWS instance with two interfaces which
have two ip addresses NATTED to them by AWS front tier using some kind
of
I may not understood\interpreted the scenario pretty well.
I will try again:
"i have a server with 2 public ips on 2 devices."
He has two servers or two gateways or both??
"I want that the request of incoming traffic dont use the default
gateway. Incoming traffic sould be answered using the
On 12/28/2015 04:50 AM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
Which means he has 1 server with two gateway devices which each has
it's own broadcast space\network.
It's not clear to me if there are two gateways in the same
broadcast\network or not.
I think it's safe to assume that the two addresses and,
I still do not understand something.
The thread started with:
i have a server with 2 public ips on 2 devices.
I want that the request of incoming traffic dont use the default
gateway. Incoming traffic sould be answered using the gateway of the
incoming device
Could i realize this with
On 12/28/2015 01:19 AM, Александр Кириллов wrote:
Are you sure? You assume the destination of the incoming traffic is > the
gateway. What if it isn't?
Can you explain what you mean? Not only am I not assuming that, I can
hardly conceive of any situation in which a host will receive traffic
On 26/12/15 06:44, Joey wrote:
Hello,
i have a server with 2 public ips on 2 devices.
This is most likely what you are after:
Routing for multiple uplinks/providers -
http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html
Cheers,
ak.
___
CentOS
On 12/26/2015 08:16 PM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
you could use some iptables rules to mark a connection for example by
the source MAC address per new connections which would be a specific
router and by that mark the connection, then in the routing level
decide which default gateway to use for
On 27/12/2015 22:49, Gordon Messmer wrote:
While that's true, you still have to select the default route using "ip
rule". And since you can do that using the source address for outgoing
packets, there's no reason to mark them. It's completely redundant.
Can you match the MAC address?? in ip
On 12/27/2015 07:49 PM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote:
On 27/12/2015 22:49, Gordon Messmer wrote:
While that's true, you still have to select the default route using "ip
rule". And since you can do that using the source address for outgoing
packets, there's no reason to mark them. It's completely
This is half true.
Depends on the application or the way that the network traffic is
flowing you could use some iptables rules to mark a connection for
example by the source MAC address per new connections which would be a
specific router and by that mark the connection, then in the routing
On 12/25/2015 12:44 PM, Joey wrote:
i have a server with 2 public ips on 2 devices.
I want that the request of incoming traffic dont use the default
gateway. Incoming traffic sould be answered using the gateway of the
incoming device
Could i realize this with firewalld? Or directly
Hello,
i have a server with 2 public ips on 2 devices.
I want that the request of incoming traffic dont use the default
gateway. Incoming traffic sould be answered using the gateway of the
incoming device
Could i realize this with firewalld? Or directly iptables?
Greeting
J
On 12/25/2015 12:28 PM, Paul R. Ganci wrote:
you have to tell the packets to go out the proper interface which must
be done via routing tables. For that purpose you need ip route. I
suggest you take a look at
I am experimenting with routing tables to obtain a little
understanding of how things work.
I have a kvm hypervisor host (KVM1) with two physical Ethernet nics
configured as bridges (br0 and br1). KVM1 br0 is configured with a
public ipv4 address [x.y.z.42/24] and br1 is configured with a
Greetings Dear CentOS List Guys
i have some specific requirement but at this point i only with to know if
the following is possible.
1.) CENTOS Machine Acting as Router
2.) Machine is part of 10 VlANs Using 10 local interfaces
Is it possible that i can identify the source traffic and forward
On 20/03/13 11:28, Prabhpal S. Mavi wrote:
Is it possible that i can identify the source traffic and forward it to
the specific interface.
i.e.
Remote packet coming from 192.168.21.0 should be forward to 192.168.20.20
(eth1)
Is that possible ?
It's possible, but it is far more
I'm actually doing it. The route2 feature can be useful in this case.
You can mark the packets and route2 will do the favor for you. It's just
different table will be used for the tagged packets. Here is what I use,
1 smtp
2 http
3 ssh
4 lan
$IPTABLES -N
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Gordon Messmer yiny...@eburg.com wrote:
On 02/08/2013 07:39 AM, Natxo Asenjo wrote:
Do you have any tips on how to reach vlan 5 on the virt host from vlan 1?
Not without the configuration from your switch.
The most likely problem is this: Your workstation
On 02/08/2013 07:39 AM, Natxo Asenjo wrote:
Do you have any tips on how to reach vlan 5 on the virt host from vlan 1?
Not without the configuration from your switch.
The most likely problem is this: Your workstation is sending traffic to
192.168.5.10. The switch sends it through VLAN 5 to
hi,
at home I have setup a kvm virtualization lab. I have a layer 3
switch, a host with 3 nics and centos 6.3.
In the layer 3 switch I have setup a couple of vlans: vlan 1
(default), 5 (quarantaine) and 10 (out-of-band-management).
nic0 is configured in the switch as a trunk interface that sees
On 10/10/2012 04:32 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
Thanks for the response. We have 450 units in the field and have only needed
to do this at one site. I am
using a userspace script to monitor the viability of each isp and changing
the routing accordingly as
described in the LARTC document. Our
On 10/09/2012 05:36 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
On 09/27/2012 05:24 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 09/27/2012 06:36 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
I was trying to figure out what criteria to use to mark the connection.
FTP is such a
braindead application, using to channels and active and passive
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote:
I was trying to figure out what criteria to use to mark the connection.
FTP is such a
braindead application, using to channels and active and passive mode.
What really
needs to happen is someway to tell the kernel to
On 09/27/2012 05:24 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 09/27/2012 06:36 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
I was trying to figure out what criteria to use to mark the connection.
FTP is such a
braindead application, using to channels and active and passive mode.
What really
needs to happen is someway to tell
The routes-x.y-z.diff is a unified patch containing different parts
which include support for Dead Gateway Detection as well. However,
since that is limited to the first hop, it is preferable to have a
userspace script as you are doing. I also use a script to check the
accessibility of a
Sounds like an issue similar to what I experienced when trying to force
all outgoing ssh traffic on a NAT'ed network to go through a particular
interface. I've forgot the details, but running the following on the
firewall helped
for f in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/rp_filter; do
echo 0 $f
On 10/03/2012 08:46 AM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
I was under the impression that you are running a FTP server inside
and were facing problems with the incoming traffic for the same. If
you are primarily concerned with the outgoing traffic through two ISP
links, please follow the following
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote:
On 10/03/2012 08:46 AM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
I was under the impression that you are running a FTP server inside
and were facing problems with the incoming traffic for the same. If
you are primarily concerned with the
On 09/27/2012 09:47 PM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote:
On 09/27/2012 11:01 AM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote:
On 09/26/2012 11:57 PM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
On
On 09/26/2012 11:57 PM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Gordon Messmer yiny...@eburg.com wrote:
On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
Is there a way to make this work correctly?
In addition, you should ideally applying the following patches for
Static,
On 09/26/2012 10:16 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
Is there a way to make this work correctly?
Shorewall will generate a proper configuration if you specify the
track option in the providers file. It might be a good idea to use
that to generate your
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote:
On 09/26/2012 11:57 PM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Gordon Messmer yiny...@eburg.com wrote:
On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
Is there a way to make this work correctly?
In
On 09/27/2012 06:36 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
I was trying to figure out what criteria to use to mark the connection.
FTP is such a
braindead application, using to channels and active and passive mode.
What really
needs to happen is someway to tell the kernel to recheck the routing
after SNAT.
On 09/27/2012 11:01 AM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote:
On 09/26/2012 11:57 PM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Gordon Messmer yiny...@eburg.com wrote:
On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
The
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote:
On 09/27/2012 11:01 AM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote:
On 09/26/2012 11:57 PM, Manish Kathuria wrote:
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Gordon Messmer
Hello,
This is on Centos 6 and not something I think is wrong with Centos 6
but I am looking to see if anybody else has experienced this and
if there is solution. So thanks up front for indulging me.
Because Linux makes routing decisions before SNAT it is causing
problems when trying to use FTP
On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
Is there a way to make this work correctly?
Shorewall will generate a proper configuration if you specify the
track option in the providers file. It might be a good idea to use
that to generate your configs rather than building them by hand.
I
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Gordon Messmer yiny...@eburg.com wrote:
On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
Is there a way to make this work correctly?
Shorewall will generate a proper configuration if you specify the
track option in the providers file. It might be a good idea to use
I am not quite sure if this issue relates to iptables, routing or Xen
virtual machines. Too many variables for my simple mind, so I'm asking
some advice :)
This is my network setup:
Internet --- eth2 + CentOS dom0 / firewall / router + eth1 (xenbr1)
--- LAN with private IPs --- separate file
Andrej Moravcik escribió:
Hello Jose,
from the picture you provided the situation looks pretty simple.
- you have enabled IP forwarding on router, I recommend you to put it
into /etc/sysctl.conf for persistence.
- you have configured firewall rules on router to allow forwarding
traffic
Les Mikesell escribió:
On 12/19/10 1:45 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote:
I wanted the reverse path. Traceroute from the 192.168.236.80 box back to the
fedora address. It doesn't make sense that it can return packets without a
route going through the Centos box.
Hello
This
Hello All
First, sorry by my poor english, hope you understand me :-)
I have a problem, i don't understand or don't know how to solve
I need to interconnect 2 networks with different numbers. One is
192.168.236.0/24 the other 192.168.1.0/24. Mainly i need to access services in
the 236. from
On 12/19/10 11:07 AM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote:
Hello All
First, sorry by my poor english, hope you understand me :-)
I have a problem, i don't understand or don't know how to solve
I need to interconnect 2 networks with different numbers. One is
192.168.236.0/24 the other
El 19/12/2010, a las 19:01, Les Mikesell escribió:
On 12/19/10 11:07 AM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote:
Hello All
First, sorry by my poor english, hope you understand me :-)
I have a problem, i don't understand or don't know how to solve
I need to interconnect 2 networks with
First make sure that you can ping/access those 'other' services from the
centos
box with 2 nics. It should source from the .236 interface and 'just work'.
If
not, you have firewalls or something else blocking traffic. When you route
other traffic from the .1 network, the
On 12/19/10 12:15 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote:
First make sure that you can ping/access those 'other' services from the
centos
box with 2 nics. It should source from the .236 interface and 'just work'.
If
not, you have firewalls or something else blocking traffic. When you
El 19/12/10 20:23, Les Mikesell escribió:
On 12/19/10 12:15 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote:
First make sure that you can ping/access those 'other' services from the
centos
box with 2 nics. It should source from the .236 interface and 'just
work'. If
not, you have firewalls or
On 12/19/10 12:31 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote:
First make sure that you can ping/access those 'other' services from the
centos
box with 2 nics. It should source from the .236 interface and 'just
work'. If
not, you have firewalls or something else blocking traffic. When you
El 19/12/2010, a las 20:34, Les Mikesell escribió:
On 12/19/10 12:31 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote:
First make sure that you can ping/access those 'other' services from the
centos
box with 2 nics. It should source from the .236 interface and 'just
work'. If
not, you have
On 12/19/10 1:45 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote:
El 19/12/2010, a las 20:34, Les Mikesell escribió:
On 12/19/10 12:31 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote:
First make sure that you can ping/access those 'other' services from the
centos
box with 2 nics. It should source from the .236
Hi,
The Fedora box (1. network):
[j...@idi ~]$ ping 192.168.236.80
PING 192.168.236.80 (192.168.236.80) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.236.80: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=1.61 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.236.80: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.684 ms
[j...@idi ~]$ ifconfig eth0 | grep
El 19/12/10 21:17, Michel van Deventer escribió:
Hi,
The Fedora box (1. network):
[j...@idi ~]$ ping 192.168.236.80
PING 192.168.236.80 (192.168.236.80) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from 192.168.236.80: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=1.61 ms
64 bytes from 192.168.236.80: icmp_req=2 ttl=64
On 12/19/10 2:30 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote:
This doesn't make much sense without a route. Can you try a traceroute
to the
fedora box address from the 192.168.236.80 box to see how/why it gets
there?
Hope it helps (all addresses are 192.168. Trimmed to compact the schema):
Les Mikesell escribió:
On 12/19/10 2:30 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote:
This doesn't make much sense without a route. Can you try a traceroute to the
fedora box address from the 192.168.236.80 box to see how/why it gets there
Hope it helps (all addresses are 192.168. Trimmed to
On 12/19/10 4:08 PM, José María Terry Jiménez wrote:
Les Mikesell escribió:
On 12/19/10 2:30 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote:
This doesn't make much sense without a route. Can you try a traceroute
to the
fedora box address from the 192.168.236.80 box to see how/why it gets
there
El 19/12/2010, a las 23:15, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com escribió:
On 12/19/10 4:08 PM, José María Terry Jiménez wrote:
Les Mikesell escribió:
On 12/19/10 2:30 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote:
This doesn't make much sense without a route. Can you try a
traceroute to the
fedora
Hello Jose,
from the picture you provided the situation looks pretty simple.
- you have enabled IP forwarding on router, I recommend you to put it
into /etc/sysctl.conf for persistence.
- you have configured firewall rules on router to allow forwarding
traffic from left to right subnet. You
2010/10/1 Mitja Mihelič mitja.mihe...@arnes.si:
On 09/30/2010 05:02 PM, John Doe wrote:
From: Mitja Miheličmitja.mihe...@arnes.si
I am trying to use hping to chek the latency of our network.
Somehow things are not going to plan and I thought someone might be able
to shed some light on the
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:22 AM, C. L. Martinez carlopm...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi all,
I need to route local generated packages depending on which tcp or udp
service I need to use. To accomplish this I have configured two routing
tables:
[r...@lothlorien ~]# ip ru ls
0: from all lookup
From: C. L. Martinez carlopm...@gmail.com
But this doesn't works. This host is CentOS 5.5 based with two interfaces.
Please, any hints?
What do you mean by this does'nt work?
Nothing works?
Half of it?
Just in case, but no idea if it is necessary, did you set forwarding?
net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:44 AM, John Doe jd...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: C. L. Martinez carlopm...@gmail.com
But this doesn't works. This host is CentOS 5.5 based with two
interfaces.
Please, any hints?
What do you mean by this does'nt work?
Nothing works?
Half of it?
Just in case, but no
On 10/15/2010 08:48 AM, C. L. Martinez wrote:
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:22 AM, C. L. Martinez carlopm...@gmail.com
mailto:carlopm...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
I need to route local generated packages depending on which tcp
or udp service I need to use. To accomplish this I
On 10/15/10 3:56 AM, C. L. Martinez wrote:
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:44 AM, John Doe jd...@yahoo.com
mailto:jd...@yahoo.com wrote:
From: C. L. Martinez carlopm...@gmail.com mailto:carlopm...@gmail.com
But this doesn't works. This host is CentOS 5.5 based with two
interfaces.
I need to route local generated packages depending on which tcp or udp
service I need to use. To accomplish this I have configured two routing
tables:
I would use the OUTPUT chain of the nat table.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
Hi all,
I need to route local generated packages depending on which tcp or udp
service I need to use. To accomplish this I have configured two routing
tables:
[r...@lothlorien ~]# ip ru ls
0: from all lookup 255
32762: from all fwmark 0x2 lookup FirstLan
32763: from all fwmark 0x1 lookup
On 09/30/2010 05:02 PM, John Doe wrote:
From: Mitja Miheličmitja.mihe...@arnes.si
I am trying to use hping to chek the latency of our network.
Somehow things are not going to plan and I thought someone might be able
to shed some light on the subject.
Here is the setup:
(the IP addresses
Hi!
I am trying to use hping to chek the latency of our network.
Somehow things are not going to plan and I thought someone might be able
to shed some light on the subject.
Here is the setup:
(the IP addresses gvien here are fake, but they do represent the correct
state of the networking
From: Mitja Mihelič mitja.mihe...@arnes.si
I am trying to use hping to chek the latency of our network.
Somehow things are not going to plan and I thought someone might be able
to shed some light on the subject.
Here is the setup:
(the IP addresses gvien here are fake, but they do represent
I have dealt with machines that have multiple network cards in them
before, but never when they were on the same subnet so this issue has
never come up before.
My problem is that I can only access one IP address at a time. I
started out using dhcp and found that if I went through the dhcp
I can offer one tiny bit of help ...
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Frank Cox thea...@sasktel.net wrote:
Incidentally, it is my current understanding that anything that I do
with an ip route command will go away on a reboot, therefore if I
somehow screw up the routing on this box
I can offer one tiny bit of help ...
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Frank Cox thea...@sasktel.net wrote:
Incidentally, it is my current understanding that anything that I do
with an ip route command will go away on a reboot, therefore if I
somehow screw up the routing on this box
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 11:33 -0500, Bob Beers wrote:
man iptables-save
That would dump the table to a file, but what would I do with the file
after that? I imagine there is a way to feed that back into the ip
command and reconfigure it, but I could do that with rc.local and avoid
one step.
Frank Cox wrote on Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:27:29 -0600:
I got rid of dhcp and set up static addresses using
system-config-network.
Can't help you on the routing back issue. Just wanted to remind you that
you can assign static IP addresses via DHCP to specific MAC addresses.
That might be easier
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 10:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
My problem is that I can only access one IP address at a time. I
started out using dhcp and found that if I went through the dhcp
song-and-dance then that address became active and the other one was
disabled, and vice versa.
I'm
On 1/20/2010 11:31 AM, Frank Cox wrote:
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 10:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
My problem is that I can only access one IP address at a time. I
started out using dhcp and found that if I went through the dhcp
song-and-dance then that address became active and the other one was
I'm starting to wonder if the simplest solution to this is to punt.
If I put a $40 router between eth2 and the big scary world,
then eth2 could become 192.168.whatever.whatever, and then
this routing issue would go away on its own and it could
still talk to the outside world (and
Frank,
I think the best way is to create bonding on eth1-eth2 and create an alias on
this bond interface.
If you need to use the two interfaces in same time, you can use round robin
parameter on the bonding interface.
If you need help on bonding you can use this howto :
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 09:50 -0800, R-Elists wrote:
ummm, why do the two different networks need an IP on the same
subnet ?
I have had a number of people ask me why I want this arrangement, where
I have two modems on a single outbound subnet.
This is (going to be) a server with limited upload
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Frank Cox thea...@sasktel.net wrote:
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 11:33 -0500, Bob Beers wrote:
man iptables-save
That would dump the table to a file, but what would I do with the file
after that? I imagine there is a way to feed that back into the ip
command and
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 11:48 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
Why did you want this arrangement in the first place? IP routes are
normally asymmetrical by design (it's a feature). I thought you said
you already had a private address on eth0. Why do you need to
distinguish between eth1/eth2 on
I have had a number of people ask me why I want this
arrangement, where I have two modems on a single outbound subnet.
This is (going to be) a server with limited upload bandwidth.
By having two outbound connections, I can use a round robin
dns entry to share the load between the
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Bob Beers bob.be...@gmail.com wrote:
You can save your ip route commands in the
/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ directory
files for each interface route-ethX. They will then be automatically
called when the
interface is brought up on reboot, or with
Incidentally, it is my current understanding that anything that I do
with an ip route command will go away on a reboot, therefore if I
somehow screw up the routing on this box completely all I have to do is
reboot it and I'll be back to what I had before. Which is not a bad
thing at the moment.
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Bob Beers bob.be...@gmail.com wrote:
here's a link to a more thorough explanation:
http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/configuring-static-routes-in-debian-or-red-hat-linux-systems.html
ok, last word from me on the subject, really,
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 10:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
My problem is that I can only access one IP address at a time. I
started out using dhcp and found that if I went through the dhcp
song-and-dance then that address became active and the other one was
disabled, and vice versa.
The solution
Bob Beers wrote on Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:33:35 -0500:
man iptables-save
this won't save the routing table
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 14:25 -0500, Bob Beers wrote:
On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Bob Beers bob.be...@gmail.com wrote:
here's a link to a more thorough explanation:
http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/configuring-static-routes-in-debian-or-red-hat-linux-systems.html
ok, last word from me
Frank Cox wrote:
I have dealt with machines that have multiple network cards in them
before, but never when they were on the same subnet so this issue has
never come up before.
My problem is that I can only access one IP address at a time. I
started out using dhcp and found that if I went
On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 10:27 +1300, Clint Dilks wrote:
This Article should be exactly what you need
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/7291/print
That's pretty much it. I will study this some more; it's an interesting
situation and I want to understand the solution.
Thanks!
--
MELVILLE
1 - 100 of 113 matches
Mail list logo
