[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: eth0 /eth1 confusion



Ben Dugdale wrote:

> Thanks, Martin.  That was exactly the advice I needed.  I was
> completely unaware that the NICs were *required* to be on seperate
> subnets.  In trying to get down to basics, I created my own problem.

I'm glad I could help. If you think a little bit about it, you'll see
the reason why the two NICs need to be in different subnets: If they are
in the same subnet, there would be *no difference* (rounting wise)
between packages from either NIC (just the source IP, but not the
routing). Thus, because the kernel doesn't see a difference and
therefore doesn't know which NIC to use, it just uses the first one (ion
your case eth0).

I hope this helps you to understand *why* the kernel acted the way it
did.

Best regards,
Martin Stricker
-- 
Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/
Linux Migration Project: http://www.linux-migration.org/
Red Hat Linux 7.3 for low memory: http://www.rule-project.org/
Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/





[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]