Thus spake Bob Proulx ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Robert L. Harris wrote: > > We're working on a network-hardened solution and I've been picked to > > figure out the solution to a problem. In a week I'll have hardware to > > play with but I'm trying to figure out the answer or a plan of attack > > early. Here's the setup: > > > > Server had 2 interfaces with IP's: > > eth0: 192.168.1.1 > > eth1: 192.168.2.1 > > lo: 192.168.0.1 > > I can't imagine what would break if lo isn't using 127.* loopback > address but I imagine it would be quite a bit. Do you have a purpose > in not using 127.0.0.1 for the loopback device? I am guessing this is > a mistake here.
The 192.168.0.1 would be assigned to lo in addition to 127.0.0.1
>
> > We want to have the machine listening on eth0 and eth1 when both
> > networks are up and functional to the OSPF broadcasts. Oubound traffic
> > needs to come from the 192.168.0.1 (lo) address though so that return
> > traffic goes to 192.168.0.1, not the other subnets and the server accept
> > the packets for lo.
> >
> > Has anyone set up something like this which is relatively easy to
> > duplicate with a stock Linux box and Zebra for the OSPF?
>
> Perhaps I am very clueless but could you expand on just what you are
> trying to do here? Of course I am not familiar with Zebra. So if
> other people jump in with real answers please ignore me.
Redundant routes to these servers from the outside world basically.
:wq!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Harris | GPG Key ID: E344DA3B
@ x-hkp://pgp.mit.edu
DISCLAIMER:
These are MY OPINIONS ALONE. I speak for no-one else.
With Dreams To Be A King First One Should Be A Man
- Manowar
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
