Re: Muilt-home routing question?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
What you want to do can't happen, you will need to have both lines
connect to a device that can do some sort of routing so the lines can be
"bridged" together. i.e. use three nics in your computer and use that
to bridge the connections.
Robert Middleswarth wrote:
> Simply breakdown that one card connects to a switch that connects to
> both cisco's yea the switch is a week point but I have a replacement
> sitting right below it and would have to run allot of new copper to add
> 3rd lines for all the systems so I left that single point of failure in
> place. No I want two virtural nics one to connect to 1.0.0.1 and route
> all traffic coming into that network out that virtual card and 1 virtual
> card for 2.0.0.1 going over 1 true nic. I that answering your basic
> question and yea I know the problem is my lack of knowledge on this one
> aspect of Linux.
>
> Thanks
> Robert
>
> Greg Ryman wrote:
> Well, you are defining two gateways for the same physical device, that
> is one of the problems.
>
> How do you have your network setup so that this computer can access both
> networks on the same nic?
>
> It looks like you want to take two connections and turn them into one,
> routing traffic across both seamlessly. Is this correct?
>
>
> Robert Middleswarth wrote:
>
>>>> Here is what I am tiring to do? I have 2 T1 a and b and there gateways
>>>> are say 1.0.0.1/26 and 2.0.0.1/26 and a local network that attach's
>>>> several sites together using 10.10.10.1/24 with the rest being
>>>> 10.10.x.x I started with this and it doesn't work caused all kinds of
>>>> problems due to default routes.
>>>>
>>>> auto lo
>>>> iface lo inet loopback
>>>>
>>>> auto eth0
>>>> iface eth0 inet static
>>>> address 1.0.0.20
>>>> netmask 255.255.255.192
>>>> network 1.0.0.0
>>>> broadcast 1.0.0.63
>>>> gateway 1.0.0.1
>>>>
>>>> auto eth0:1
>>>> iface eth0:1 inet static
>>>> address 2.0.0.20
>>>> netmask 255.255.255.192
>>>> network 2.0.0.0
>>>> broadcast 2.0.0.63
>>>> gateway 2.0.0.1
>>>>
>>>> auto eth1
>>>> iface eth1 inet static
>>>> address 10.10.10.20
>>>> netmask 255.255.255.0
>>>> network 10.10.10.0
>>>> broadcast 10.10.10.255
>>>> gateway 10.10.10.1
>>>>
>>>> I did a good search and found this
>>>> http://www.debian-administration.org/articles/377 but it would require 3
>>>> Nic's and I couldn't figuire out how to route for the 10.10.x.x
>>>> address. I only have 2 Nics in my machines and they are converted sun
>>>> boxes I am not sure if I can even get more nics for and don't have a
>>>> budget for it right now. I read the attached how-to but I can't figure
>>>> out how to convert what is in the how-to in to a debian config. I tried
>>>> this but it didn't work.
>>>> # The primary network interface
>>>> auto eth0
>>>> iface eth0 inet static
>>>> address 1.0.0.20
>>>> netmask 255.255.255.192
>>>> post-up ip route add 1.0.0.1/26 dev eth0 src 1.0.0.20 table uplink1
>>>> post-up ip route add default via 1.0.0.1 table uplink1
>>>> post-up ip rule add from 1.0.0.20 table uplink1
>>>> post-down ip rule del from 1.0.0.20 table uplink1
>>>>
>>>> #Uplink2
>>>> auto eth0:1
>>>> iface eth0:1 inet static
>>>> address 2.0.0.20
>>>> netmask 255.255.255.192
>>>> post-up ip route add 2.0.0.1/26 dev eth0:1 src 2.0.0.20 table uplink2
>>>> post-up ip route add default via 2.0.0.1 table uplink2
>>>> post-up ip rule add from 2.0.0.20 table uplink2
>>>> post-down ip rule del from 2.0.0.20 table uplink2
>>>>
>>>> That didn't work I am not sure how to change the settings to make this
>>>> work any idea's or how-to that I have missed that you can think of to
>>>> help.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
> --
> Greg Ryman
> Network Engineering Supervisor
> Candylogic, LLC.
> gregr@candylogic.com
> 949-916-4444 x.203
>>
>>
- --
Greg Ryman
Network Engineering Supervisor
Candylogic, LLC.
gregr@candylogic.com
949-916-4444 x.203
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.4 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFErshp3nq9k6G+PM0RAk0EAJwMMUa4q43Y7GVhmvbEdtnCwmm07gCfaIOc
TXkKW9iK0txaHCNFaeyUi5A=
=sc6W
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: