Re: [CentOS] Routing(?) issue

W dniu 14.09.2018 o 10:25, Deventer-2, M.S.J. van pisze: > this has nothing to do with CentOS but with your router which does not > support using the public IP from inside your network (which is quite > common). > If the port is open on your router when you access it from another > public IP then

Re: [CentOS] Routing(?) issue

Hi, this has nothing to do with CentOS but with your router which does not support using the public IP from inside your network (which is quite common). If the port is open on your router when you access it from another public IP then all is well. Regards, Michel On Fri, 2018-09-14 at 09:43

Re: [CentOS] Routing(?) issue

W dniu 13.09.2018 o 22:19, Oleg Cherkasov pisze: > On 13. sep. 2018 21:02, Marcin Trendota wrote: >> >> There is nginx on port 80. >> I've turned off SELinux for testing purposes. >> >> [root@chamber ~]# nmap chamber -p80 >> [...] >> PORT   STATE SERVICE >> 80/tcp open  http >> >> [root@chamber ~]#

Re: [CentOS] Routing(?) issue

On 13. sep. 2018 21:02, Marcin Trendota wrote: There is nginx on port 80. I've turned off SELinux for testing purposes. [root@chamber ~]# nmap chamber -p80 [...] PORT STATE SERVICE 80/tcp open http [root@chamber ~]# nmap -p80 chmura. [...] PORT STATE SERVICE 80/tcp closed http Do a qui

[CentOS] Routing(?) issue

Hello all I have weird problem i can't understand and don't know where to look. [root@chamber ~]# ip addr 1: lo: mtu 65536 qdisc noqueue state UNKNOWN group default qlen 1000 link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00 inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo valid_lft forever pre

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

On 30/12/2015 18:37, Joey wrote: Hello, i follow your discussion. The first 2 posts using multiple default routes solve my problem perfect. Thank you all. J Thanks for clearing it out Joey! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.cen

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

Hello, i follow your discussion. The first 2 posts using multiple default routes solve my problem perfect. Thank you all. J Am 2015-12-30 17:21, schrieb Eliezer Croitoru: On 30/12/2015 10:22, Paul R. Ganci wrote: On 12/30/2015 12:44 AM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: "I want that the request o

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

On 30/12/2015 10:22, Paul R. Ganci wrote: On 12/30/2015 12:44 AM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: "I want that the request of incoming traffic dont use the default gateway. Incoming traffic sould be answered using the gateway of the incoming device " I'm sorry but I have been following this thread fo

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

On 12/30/2015 12:44 AM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: "I want that the request of incoming traffic dont use the default gateway. Incoming traffic sould be answered using the gateway of the incoming device " I'm sorry but I have been following this thread for a while and everything that Gordon (a

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

I'm struggling to understand what you meant when you said that the destination is the gateway. If you just mean that the traffic is NATed, then again, I was not assuming that in any of my explanations. I said that, assuming the host with 2 public ips mentioned in the OP could be the gateway fo

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

I may not understood\interpreted the scenario pretty well. I will try again: "i have a server with 2 public ips on 2 devices." He has two servers or two gateways or both?? "I want that the request of incoming traffic dont use the default gateway. Incoming traffic sould be answered using the gate

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

On 12/29/2015 07:18 AM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: ... Basic 1:1 NAT ... you have two gateways while you have two ip addresses or one on the interface. Just to illustrate the issue: AWS instance with two interfaces which have two ip addresses NATTED to them by AWS front tier using some kind of vir

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

On 28/12/2015 22:47, Gordon Messmer wrote: Can you explain what you mean? Not only am I not assuming that, I can hardly conceive of any situation in which a host will receive traffic for its own gateway. ... Basic 1:1 NAT ... you have two gateways while you have two ip addresses or one on the

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

On 12/28/2015 04:50 AM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: Which means he has 1 server with two gateway devices which each has it's own broadcast space\network. It's not clear to me if there are two gateways in the same broadcast\network or not. I think it's safe to assume that the two addresses and, nec

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

On 12/28/2015 01:19 AM, Александр Кириллов wrote: Are you sure? You assume the destination of the incoming traffic is > the gateway. What if it isn't? Can you explain what you mean? Not only am I not assuming that, I can hardly conceive of any situation in which a host will receive traffic

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

I still do not understand something. The thread started with: i have a server with 2 public ips on 2 devices. I want that the request of incoming traffic dont use the default gateway. Incoming traffic sould be answered using the gateway of the incoming device Could i realize this with firewal

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

On 12/27/2015 07:49 PM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: On 27/12/2015 22:49, Gordon Messmer wrote: While that's true, you still have to select the default route using "ip rule". And since you can do that using the source address for outgoing packets, there's no reason to mark them. It's completely red

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

On 27/12/2015 22:49, Gordon Messmer wrote: While that's true, you still have to select the default route using "ip rule". And since you can do that using the source address for outgoing packets, there's no reason to mark them. It's completely redundant. Can you match the MAC address?? in ip ru

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

On 12/26/2015 08:16 PM, Eliezer Croitoru wrote: you could use some iptables rules to mark a connection for example by the source MAC address per new connections which would be a specific router and by that mark the connection, then in the routing level decide which default gateway to use for th

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

On 26/12/15 06:44, Joey wrote: Hello, i have a server with 2 public ips on 2 devices. This is most likely what you are after: Routing for multiple uplinks/providers - http://lartc.org/howto/lartc.rpdb.multiple-links.html Cheers, ak. ___ CentOS

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

This is half true. Depends on the application or the way that the network traffic is flowing you could use some iptables rules to mark a connection for example by the source MAC address per new connections which would be a specific router and by that mark the connection, then in the routing le

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

On 12/25/2015 12:28 PM, Paul R. Ganci wrote: you have to tell the packets to go out the proper interface which must be done via routing tables. For that purpose you need ip route. I suggest you take a look at https://kindlund.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/configuring-multiple-default-routes-in-linu

Re: [CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

On 12/25/2015 12:44 PM, Joey wrote: i have a server with 2 public ips on 2 devices. I want that the request of incoming traffic dont use the default gateway. Incoming traffic sould be answered using the gateway of the incoming device Could i realize this with firewalld? Or directly iptables

[CentOS] routing with 2 public ips

Hello, i have a server with 2 public ips on 2 devices. I want that the request of incoming traffic dont use the default gateway. Incoming traffic sould be answered using the gateway of the incoming device Could i realize this with firewalld? Or directly iptables? Greeting J

[CentOS] Routing setup questions

I am experimenting with routing tables to obtain a little understanding of how things work. I have a kvm hypervisor host (KVM1) with two physical Ethernet nics configured as bridges (br0 and br1). KVM1 br0 is configured with a public ipv4 address [x.y.z.42/24] and br1 is configured with a private

Re: [CentOS] Routing

I'm actually doing it. The route2 feature can be useful in this case. You can mark the packets and route2 will do the favor for you. It's just different table will be used for the tagged packets. Here is what I use, 1 smtp 2 http 3 ssh 4 lan $IPTABLES -N Cid6642X273

Re: [CentOS] Routing

On 20/03/13 11:28, Prabhpal S. Mavi wrote: > Is it possible that i can identify the source traffic and forward it to > the specific interface. > > i.e. > > Remote packet coming from 192.168.21.0 should be forward to 192.168.20.20 > (eth1) > > > Is that possible ? It's possible, but it is far m

[CentOS] Routing

Greetings Dear CentOS List Guys i have some specific requirement but at this point i only with to know if the following is possible. 1.) CENTOS Machine Acting as Router 2.) Machine is part of 10 VlANs Using 10 local interfaces Is it possible that i can identify the source traffic and forward i

Re: [CentOS] routing problem?

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:51 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 02/08/2013 07:39 AM, Natxo Asenjo wrote: >> Do you have any tips on how to reach vlan 5 on the virt host from vlan 1? > > Not without the configuration from your switch. > > The most likely problem is this: Your workstation is sending t

Re: [CentOS] routing problem?

On 02/08/2013 07:39 AM, Natxo Asenjo wrote: > Do you have any tips on how to reach vlan 5 on the virt host from vlan 1? Not without the configuration from your switch. The most likely problem is this: Your workstation is sending traffic to 192.168.5.10. The switch sends it through VLAN 5 to et

[CentOS] routing problem?

hi, at home I have setup a kvm virtualization lab. I have a layer 3 switch, a host with 3 nics and centos 6.3. In the layer 3 switch I have setup a couple of vlans: vlan 1 (default), 5 (quarantaine) and 10 (out-of-band-management). nic0 is configured in the switch as a trunk interface that sees

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

On 10/10/2012 04:32 AM, Steve Clark wrote: > Thanks for the response. We have 450 units in the field and have only needed > to do this at one site. I am > using a userspace script to monitor the viability of each isp and changing > the routing accordingly as > described in the LARTC document. Our

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 6:32 AM, Steve Clark wrote: > I was trying to figure out what criteria to use to mark the connection. FTP is such a braindead application, using to channels and active and passive mode. What really needs to happen is someway to tell the kernel to re

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

On 10/09/2012 05:36 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: > On 09/27/2012 05:24 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: >> On 09/27/2012 06:36 AM, Steve Clark wrote: >>> I was trying to figure out what criteria to use to mark the connection. >>> FTP is such a >>> braindead application, using to channels and active and

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

On 09/27/2012 05:24 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 09/27/2012 06:36 AM, Steve Clark wrote: >> I was trying to figure out what criteria to use to mark the connection. >> FTP is such a >> braindead application, using to channels and active and passive mode. >> What really >> needs to happen is somewa

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 7:00 PM, Steve Clark wrote: > On 10/03/2012 08:46 AM, Manish Kathuria wrote: > > I was under the impression that you are running a FTP server inside > and were facing problems with the incoming traffic for the same. If > you are primarily concerned with the outgoing traffic

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

On 10/03/2012 08:46 AM, Manish Kathuria wrote: >> > I was under the impression that you are running a FTP server inside > and were facing problems with the incoming traffic for the same. If > you are primarily concerned with the outgoing traffic through two ISP > links, please follow the following

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

Sounds like an issue similar to what I experienced when trying to force all outgoing ssh traffic on a NAT'ed network to go through a particular interface. I've forgot the details, but running the following on the firewall helped for f in /proc/sys/net/ipv4/conf/*/rp_filter; do echo 0 > $f

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

> > The routes-x.y-z.diff is a unified patch containing different parts > which include support for Dead Gateway Detection as well. However, > since that is limited to the first hop, it is preferable to have a > userspace script as you are doing. I also use a script to check the > accessibility of

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

On 09/27/2012 09:47 PM, Manish Kathuria wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Steve Clark wrote: >> On 09/27/2012 11:01 AM, Manish Kathuria wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Steve Clark wrote: >> >> On 09/26/2012 11:57 PM, Manish Kathuria wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:46

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Steve Clark wrote: > On 09/27/2012 11:01 AM, Manish Kathuria wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Steve Clark wrote: > > On 09/26/2012 11:57 PM, Manish Kathuria wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > > On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, S

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

On 09/27/2012 11:01 AM, Manish Kathuria wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Steve Clark wrote: >> On 09/26/2012 11:57 PM, Manish Kathuria wrote: >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote: >> >> On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, Steve Clark wrote: > The routes-x.y-z.diff is a unified

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

On 09/27/2012 06:36 AM, Steve Clark wrote: > I was trying to figure out what criteria to use to mark the connection. > FTP is such a > braindead application, using to channels and active and passive mode. > What really > needs to happen is someway to tell the kernel to recheck the routing > after S

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:04 PM, Steve Clark wrote: > On 09/26/2012 11:57 PM, Manish Kathuria wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > > On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, Steve Clark wrote: > > Is there a way to make this work correctly? > > In addition, you should ideally apply

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

On 09/26/2012 10:16 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, Steve Clark wrote: >> Is there a way to make this work correctly? > Shorewall will generate a proper configuration if you specify the > "track" option in the "providers" file. It might be a good idea to use > that to generate

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

On 09/26/2012 11:57 PM, Manish Kathuria wrote: > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote: >> On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, Steve Clark wrote: >>> Is there a way to make this work correctly? > In addition, you should ideally applying the following patches for > Static, Alternative Routes,

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 7:46 AM, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, Steve Clark wrote: >> Is there a way to make this work correctly? > > Shorewall will generate a proper configuration if you specify the > "track" option in the "providers" file. It might be a good idea to use > that

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue

On 09/26/2012 09:15 AM, Steve Clark wrote: > Is there a way to make this work correctly? Shorewall will generate a proper configuration if you specify the "track" option in the "providers" file. It might be a good idea to use that to generate your configs rather than building them by hand. I b

[CentOS] Routing issue

Hello, This is on Centos 6 and not something I think is wrong with Centos 6 but I am looking to see if anybody else has experienced this and if there is solution. So thanks up front for indulging me. Because Linux makes routing decisions before SNAT it is causing problems when trying to use FTP w

[CentOS] routing and virtual machines: how to access dmz if bridged to two networks

I am not quite sure if this issue relates to iptables, routing or Xen virtual machines. Too many variables for my simple mind, so I'm asking some advice :) This is my network setup: Internet --- eth2 + CentOS dom0 / firewall / router + eth1 (xenbr1) --- LAN with private IPs --- separate file s

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

Les Mikesell escribió: On 12/19/10 1:45 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote: I wanted the reverse path. Traceroute from the 192.168.236.80 box back to the fedora address. It doesn't make sense that it can return packets without a route going through the Centos box. Hello This arrive

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

Andrej Moravcik escribió: Hello Jose, from the picture you provided the situation looks pretty simple. - you have enabled IP forwarding on router, I recommend you to put it into /etc/sysctl.conf for persistence. - you have configured firewall rules on router to allow forwarding traffic from

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

Hello Jose, from the picture you provided the situation looks pretty simple. - you have enabled IP forwarding on router, I recommend you to put it into /etc/sysctl.conf for persistence. - you have configured firewall rules on router to allow forwarding traffic from left to right subnet. You ca

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

El 19/12/2010, a las 23:15, Les Mikesell escribió: > On 12/19/10 4:08 PM, José María Terry Jiménez wrote: >> Les Mikesell escribió: >>> On 12/19/10 2:30 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote: >>> This doesn't make much sense without a route. Can you try a traceroute to the

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

On 12/19/10 4:08 PM, José María Terry Jiménez wrote: > Les Mikesell escribió: >> On 12/19/10 2:30 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote: >> >>> This doesn't make much sense without a route. Can you try a traceroute >>> to the >>> fedora box address from the 192.168.236.80 box to see how/

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

Les Mikesell escribió: On 12/19/10 2:30 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote: This doesn't make much sense without a route. Can you try a traceroute to the fedora box address from the 192.168.236.80 box to see how/why it gets there Hope it helps (all addresses are 192.168. Trimmed to compac

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

On 12/19/10 2:30 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote: > > > This doesn't make much sense without a route. Can you try a traceroute > to the > fedora box address from the 192.168.236.80 box to see how/why it gets > there? >> > Hope it helps (all addresses are 192.168. Tri

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

El 19/12/10 21:17, Michel van Deventer escribió: > Hi, > > The Fedora box (1. network): > [j...@idi ~]$ ping 192.168.236.80 > PING 192.168.236.80 (192.168.236.80) 56(84) bytes of data. > 64 bytes from 192.168.236.80: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=1.61 ms > 64 bytes from 192.168.236.80:

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

Hi, > >>> The Fedora box (1. network): > >>> [j...@idi ~]$ ping 192.168.236.80 > >>> PING 192.168.236.80 (192.168.236.80) 56(84) bytes of data. > >>> 64 bytes from 192.168.236.80: icmp_req=1 ttl=64 time=1.61 ms > >>> 64 bytes from 192.168.236.80: icmp_req=2 ttl=64 time=0.684 ms > >>> [j...@idi ~]$

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

On 12/19/10 1:45 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote: > > El 19/12/2010, a las 20:34, Les Mikesell escribió: > >> On 12/19/10 12:31 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote: > > First make sure that you can ping/access those 'other' services from the > centos > box with 2 nics. It shoul

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

El 19/12/2010, a las 20:34, Les Mikesell escribió: > On 12/19/10 12:31 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote: First make sure that you can ping/access those 'other' services from the centos box with 2 nics. It should source from the .236 interface and 'just work'. If >

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

On 12/19/10 12:31 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote: >>> >>> First make sure that you can ping/access those 'other' services from the >>> centos >>> box with 2 nics. It should source from the .236 interface and 'just >>> work'. If >>> not, you have firewalls or something else blocking traffic

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

El 19/12/10 20:23, Les Mikesell escribió: > On 12/19/10 12:15 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote: >>> First make sure that you can ping/access those 'other' services from the >>> centos >>> box with 2 nics. It should source from the .236 interface and 'just >>> work'. If >>> not, you have fire

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

On 12/19/10 12:15 PM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote: > >> >> First make sure that you can ping/access those 'other' services from the >> centos >> box with 2 nics. It should source from the .236 interface and 'just work'. >> If >> not, you have firewalls or something else blocking traffic.

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

>> >> First make sure that you can ping/access those 'other' services from the >> centos >> box with 2 nics. It should source from the .236 interface and 'just work'. >> If >> not, you have firewalls or something else blocking traffic. When you route >> other traffic from the .1 network,

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

El 19/12/2010, a las 19:01, Les Mikesell escribió: > On 12/19/10 11:07 AM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote: >> Hello All >> >> First, sorry by my poor english, hope you understand me :-) >> >> I have a problem, i don't understand or don't know how to solve >> >> I need to interconnect 2 network

Re: [CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

On 12/19/10 11:07 AM, Jose Maria Terry Jimenez wrote: > Hello All > > First, sorry by my poor english, hope you understand me :-) > > I have a problem, i don't understand or don't know how to solve > > I need to interconnect 2 networks with different numbers. One is > 192.168.236.0/24 the other 192

[CentOS] Routing issue between 2 LANs

Hello All First, sorry by my poor english, hope you understand me :-) I have a problem, i don't understand or don't know how to solve I need to interconnect 2 networks with different numbers. One is 192.168.236.0/24 the other 192.168.1.0/24. Mainly i need to access services in the 236. from th

Re: [CentOS] Routing of outgoing packets

2010/10/1 Mitja Mihelič : > > On 09/30/2010 05:02 PM, John Doe wrote: >> From: Mitja Mihelič >>> I am trying to use hping to chek the latency of our network. >>> Somehow things are not going to plan and I thought someone might be able >>> to shed some light on the subject. >>> Here is the setup: >>

Re: [CentOS] Routing local generted packets with fwmark

>> I need to route local generated packages depending on which tcp or udp >> service I need to use. To accomplish this I have configured two routing >> tables: I would use the OUTPUT chain of the nat table. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http

Re: [CentOS] Routing local generted packets with fwmark

On 10/15/10 3:56 AM, C. L. Martinez wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:44 AM, John Doe > wrote: > > From: C. L. Martinez mailto:carlopm...@gmail.com>> > >>But this doesn't works. This host is CentOS 5.5 based with two > interfaces. > >Please, any hints?

Re: [CentOS] Routing local generted packets with fwmark

On 10/15/2010 08:48 AM, C. L. Martinez wrote: On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:22 AM, C. L. Martinez > wrote: Hi all, I need to route local generated packages depending on which tcp or udp service I need to use. To accomplish this I have configured tw

Re: [CentOS] Routing local generted packets with fwmark

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:44 AM, John Doe wrote: > From: C. L. Martinez > >>But this doesn't works. This host is CentOS 5.5 based with two > interfaces. > >Please, any hints? > > What do you mean by this does'nt work? > Nothing works? > Half of it? > Just in case, but no idea if it is necessary

Re: [CentOS] Routing local generted packets with fwmark

From: C. L. Martinez >>But this doesn't works. This host is CentOS 5.5 based with two interfaces. >Please, any hints? What do you mean by this does'nt work? Nothing works? Half of it? Just in case, but no idea if it is necessary, did you set forwarding? net.ipv4.ip_forward = 1 But again, I am not

Re: [CentOS] Routing local generted packets with fwmark

On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:22 AM, C. L. Martinez wrote: > Hi all, > > I need to route local generated packages depending on which tcp or udp > service I need to use. To accomplish this I have configured two routing > tables: > > [r...@lothlorien ~]# ip ru ls > 0: from all lookup 255 > 32762:

[CentOS] Routing local generted packets with fwmark

Hi all, I need to route local generated packages depending on which tcp or udp service I need to use. To accomplish this I have configured two routing tables: [r...@lothlorien ~]# ip ru ls 0: from all lookup 255 32762: from all fwmark 0x2 lookup FirstLan 32763: from all fwmark 0x1 lookup

Re: [CentOS] Routing of outgoing packets

On 09/30/2010 05:02 PM, John Doe wrote: > From: Mitja Mihelič >> I am trying to use hping to chek the latency of our network. >> Somehow things are not going to plan and I thought someone might be able >> to shed some light on the subject. >> Here is the setup: >> (the IP addresses gvien here are

Re: [CentOS] Routing of outgoing packets

From: Mitja Mihelič > I am trying to use hping to chek the latency of our network. > Somehow things are not going to plan and I thought someone might be able > to shed some light on the subject. > Here is the setup: > (the IP addresses gvien here are fake, but they do represent the correct > sta

[CentOS] Routing of outgoing packets

Hi! I am trying to use hping to chek the latency of our network. Somehow things are not going to plan and I thought someone might be able to shed some light on the subject. Here is the setup: (the IP addresses gvien here are fake, but they do represent the correct state of the networking setu

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 16:05 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > What's upstream? Two dsl lines from the same provider? Cable, actually. > Can you get them provisioned on different subnets? If I really had to I probably could; I have another modem in this same building from them that I've had for a

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 17:08 -0500, Robert Spangler wrote: > Please be aware that DNS was not designed to do what you are doing. > Yes it > will do a round-robin but is not connection aware. Lose a link and > you lose > half of the connections even though one link is still active. I'm aware of

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

On 1/20/2010 4:08 PM, Robert Spangler wrote: > On Wednesday 20 January 2010 13:57, Frank Cox wrote: > >> On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 09:50 -0800, R-Elists wrote: >> > ummm, why do the two different networks need an IP on the same >> > subnet ? >> >> I have had a number of people ask me why I wa

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

On Wednesday 20 January 2010 13:57, Frank Cox wrote: > On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 09:50 -0800, R-Elists wrote: > > ummm, why do the two different networks need an IP on the same > > subnet ? > > I have had a number of people ask me why I want this arrangement, where > I have two modems on a single

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

On 1/20/2010 1:41 PM, Frank Cox wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 14:25 -0500, Bob Beers wrote: >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Bob Beers wrote: >>> here's a link to a more thorough explanation: >>> >>>

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

On Thu, 2010-01-21 at 10:27 +1300, Clint Dilks wrote: > This Article should be exactly what you need > > http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/7291/print That's pretty much it. I will study this some more; it's an interesting situation and I want to understand the solution. Thanks! -- MELVILLE THE

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

Frank Cox wrote: > I have dealt with machines that have multiple network cards in them > before, but never when they were on the same subnet so this issue has > never come up before. > > My problem is that I can only access one IP address at a time. I > started out using dhcp and found that if I w

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 14:25 -0500, Bob Beers wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Bob Beers wrote: > > here's a link to a more thorough explanation: > > > > > > ok, last word from me on the sub

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

Bob Beers wrote on Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:33:35 -0500: > man iptables-save this won't save the routing table Kai -- Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.or

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 10:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote: > My problem is that I can only access one IP address at a time. I > started out using dhcp and found that if I went through the dhcp > song-and-dance then that address became active and the other one was > disabled, and vice versa. The soluti

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:20 PM, Bob Beers wrote: > here's a link to a more thorough explanation: > > ok, last word from me on the subject, really,

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

Incidentally, it is my current understanding that anything that I do with an "ip route" command will go away on a reboot, therefore if I somehow screw up the routing on this box completely all I have to do is reboot it and I'll be back to what I had before.  Which is not a bad thing at the moment.

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 1:52 PM, Bob Beers wrote: > You can save your ip route commands in the > /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ directory >  files for each interface route-ethX.  They will then be automatically > called when the >  interface is brought up on reboot, or with 'service network resta

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

> > I have had a number of people ask me why I want this > arrangement, where I have two modems on a single outbound subnet. > > This is (going to be) a server with limited upload bandwidth. > By having two outbound connections, I can use a round robin > dns entry to share the load between

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 11:48 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > Why did you want this arrangement in the first place? IP routes are > normally asymmetrical by design (it's a feature). I thought you said > you already had a private address on eth0. Why do you need to > distinguish between eth1/eth2

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Frank Cox wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 11:33 -0500, Bob Beers wrote: >> man iptables-save > > That would dump the table to a file, but what would I do with the file > after that?  I imagine there is a way to feed that back into the ip > command and reconfigure

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 09:50 -0800, R-Elists wrote: > ummm, why do the two different networks need an IP on the same > subnet ? I have had a number of people ask me why I want this arrangement, where I have two modems on a single outbound subnet. This is (going to be) a server with limited upload

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

Frank, I think the best way is to create bonding on eth1-eth2 and create an alias on this bond interface. If you need to use the two interfaces in same time, you can use round robin parameter on the bonding interface. If you need help on bonding you can use this howto : http://www.generationi

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

> > I'm starting to wonder if the simplest solution to this is to punt. > > If I put a $40 router between eth2 and the big scary world, > then eth2 could become 192.168.whatever.whatever, and then > this routing issue would go away on its own and it could > still talk to the outside world (

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

On 1/20/2010 11:31 AM, Frank Cox wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 10:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote: > >> >> My problem is that I can only access one IP address at a time. I >> started out using dhcp and found that if I went through the dhcp >> song-and-dance then that address became active and the oth

Re: [CentOS] routing multiple network cards on a single subnet

On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 10:27 -0600, Frank Cox wrote: > > My problem is that I can only access one IP address at a time. I > started out using dhcp and found that if I went through the dhcp > song-and-dance then that address became active and the other one was > disabled, and vice versa. I'm sta

  1   2   >