Bjørn Tore Sund schrieb:
Jan wrote:
Hey Bjørn,
Hey Jan,
If you bottom-quote and edit when you respond to me, it becomes that
much easier to reply _in_ your email and address specifics there.
Alright! The next time, i will do so :)
the traffic isn't send by a different subnet ...
eth1 =
Helmut Hullen schrieb:
Hallo, Jan,
Du (jan) meintest am 04.08.07:
the traffic isn't send by a different subnet ...
eth1 = 192.168.0.100 ( default route via 192.168.0.150 )
eth2 = 192.168.0.200
both interfaces belonging to the same net (255.255.255.0) ...
Hallo, Jan,
Du (jan) meintest am 04.08.07:
> the traffic isn't send by a different subnet ...
> eth1 = 192.168.0.100 ( default route via 192.168.0.150 )
> eth2 = 192.168.0.200
> both interfaces belonging to the same net (255.255.255.0) ...
That's no good configuration - try to work with one c
Jan wrote:
Hey Bjørn,
Hey Jan,
If you bottom-quote and edit when you respond to me, it becomes that
much easier to reply _in_ your email and address specifics there.
the traffic isn't send by a different subnet ...
eth1 = 192.168.0.100 ( default route via 192.168.0.150 )
eth2 = 192.168.0.2
On 8/4/07, Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm not this stupid okay? :) - the syntax and interface are formated
> correctly.
Sorry, I not intended this.
Have you checked how clients are resolving netbios names?
As both interface are in the same networks, maybe due to same names
set in /etc/hosts
Hey Bjørn,
the traffic isn't send by a different subnet ...
eth1 = 192.168.0.100 ( default route via 192.168.0.150 )
eth2 = 192.168.0.200
both interfaces belonging to the same net (255.255.255.0) ...
eth2 is not configurated with an default route. could this be the failure?
(i don't think so
I'm not this stupid okay? :) - the syntax and interface are formated
correctly.
the netbios broadcasts are send by the specified interface but however a
data transfer
starts the complete traffic goes over the eth1 device. It's really
strange isn't it?
Would someone please check if it's the sam
Jan wrote:
Jan schrieb:
Hello,
tonight my home samba server attracted my attention because i had
seen that the complete
traffic (copy user->server / server->user) goes via eth0 and not how
specified in smb.con
via the eth2 interface.
i tried to bind it like this:
*interfaces = lo eth2
This is correct: http://www.samba.org/samba/docs/server_security.html
Maybe you have forgotten restart the service.
On 8/4/07, Jan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes - but the same error as before ...
> Anyone else have another idea?
>
> best regards
> Jan
>
>
> cuicui schrieb:
> > Jan a écrit :
> >
Yes - but the same error as before ...
Anyone else have another idea?
best regards
Jan
cuicui schrieb:
Jan a écrit :
Hello,
tonight my home samba server attracted my attention because i had
seen that the complete
traffic (copy user->server / server->user) goes via eth0 and not how
specifi
Yes - but the same error as before ...
Anyone else have another idea?
best regards
Jan
cuicui schrieb:
Jan a écrit :
Hello,
tonight my home samba server attracted my attention because i had
seen that the complete
traffic (copy user->server / server->user) goes via eth0 and not how
specifie
Yes - but the same error as before ...
Anyone else have another idea?
best regards
Jan
Jan schrieb:
Hello,
tonight my home samba server attracted my attention because i had seen
that the complete
traffic (copy user->server / server->user) goes via eth0 and not how
specified in smb.con
via
Jan a écrit :
Hello,
tonight my home samba server attracted my attention because i had seen
that the complete
traffic (copy user->server / server->user) goes via eth0 and not how
specified in smb.con
via the eth2 interface.
i tried to bind it like this:
*interfaces = lo eth2
*
in
Hello,
tonight my home samba server attracted my attention because i had seen
that the complete
traffic (copy user->server / server->user) goes via eth0 and not how
specified in smb.con
via the eth2 interface.
i tried to bind it like this:
*interfaces = lo eth2
*
in smb.conf ... an
14 matches
Mail list logo
