Second ethernet without router?

[John O'Loughlin]

It sounds like this is what you did...look at output of the route command 
to see what the default route is.

You don't need a router to connect together the second interfaces as long 
as they are all on the same subnet.

John

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Troy Amburg wrote:

> You might want make sure you didn't set the default route for the entire 
> host to 192.168.1.1.
>
> On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:39 PM, Steven Buehler wrote:
>
>> 	I have several servers running on public IP's all on their eth0's.
>> They of course have a router -> switch -> servers.  I would like to 
>> setup a
>> local net on the eth1's of each server, but I don't have a router.  Just 
>> the
>> switch and servers.  I must have goofed something up pretty bad because 
>> I
>> setup the eth1 on one of the servers to have an IP of 192.168.1.1, Mask 
>> of
>> 255.255.255.0 and gateway of 192.168.1.1.  The second server was an IP 
>> of
>> 192.168.1.2, Mask of 255.255.255.0 and gateway of 192.168.1.1.  After 
>> doing
>> an "ifup eth1" on each machine, the public IP's on the eth0's can't be
>> reached any more either.  Do I need to have a separate router and switch 
>> to
>> do this?
>> 
>> Thanks
>> Steve
>> 
>> -- 
>> redhat-list mailing list
>> unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
>
> -- 
> redhat-list mailing list
> unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request at redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list