On Nov 7, 2011 10:17 PM, "Massimiliano Ziccardi" <
massimiliano.zicca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> they told me 255.255.255.255 is ok
>
> I really thank you all very much for your support!
>
Cool! That should solve the problem of a subnet being associated to dev lo
Anyways, this is also a good kn
they told me 255.255.255.255 is ok
I really thank you all very much for your support!
Regards,
Massimiliano
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 15:48, Massimiliano Ziccardi <
massimiliano.zicca...@gmail.com> wrote:
> try assigning a netmask of 255.255.255.255 to it.
>
>
> Seems to work!
> I'm asking to
>
> try assigning a netmask of 255.255.255.255 to it.
Seems to work!
I'm asking to the network administrators if 255.255.255.255 is ok !
I'll let you know!
Thank you all! Gentoo's mailing list il always the best one!
Thanks!
Am Montag, 7. November 2011, 15:20:12 schrieb Massimiliano Ziccardi:
> Maybe I found where the problem is!
> Shutting down lo:0 everything seems to work properly!
> However I need to configure lo:0 for local triangulation (balancing through
> RADWARE): how should I configure it to not conflict with
I'm going to highlight anomalous routes, those that have no business in the
local table.
On Nov 7, 2011 9:14 PM, "Massimiliano Ziccardi" <
massimiliano.zicca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I've been deploying multi-interface Linux gateways since 2008, so I'll
try.
>> Please post:
>> - output of ip rul
Maybe I found where the problem is!
Shutting down lo:0 everything seems to work properly!
However I need to configure lo:0 for local triangulation (balancing through
RADWARE): how should I configure it to not conflict with the other network
cards?
Thanks!
Massimiliano Ziccardi
Sorry, I sent you the wrong output of ip route sh table 0.
Follows the right one (sorry!)
# ip route sh table 0
192.168.19.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.19.95
195.75.145.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 195.75.145.122
default via 195.75.145.1 dev eth0
broadcast
Our network admin told me to create a lo:0 to that address to create a VIP
to be balanced by the network load balancer.
That is why lo:0 is there...
Thanks!
Regards,
Massimiliano Ziccardi
On Mon, Nov 7, 2011 at 15:01, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> Am Montag, 7. November 2011, 14:35:46 schri
>
> I've been deploying multi-interface Linux gateways since 2008, so I'll try.
> Please post:
> - output of ip rule sh
# ip rule sh
0: from all lookup local
32766: from all lookup main
32767: from all lookup default
# ip route sh table 0
192.168.19.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link
Am Montag, 7. November 2011, 14:35:46 schrieb Massimiliano Ziccardi:
> > seems to be a really tricky one...
> > What does
> > tracepath 195.75.145.33
> > give?
>
> Here is the output:
>
> 1: 195.75.145.33 (195.75.145.33) 0.074ms pmtu
> 16436
> 1: 195.75.145.33 (195.75
On Nov 7, 2011 8:38 PM, "Massimiliano Ziccardi" <
massimiliano.zicca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> seems to be a really tricky one...
>> What does
>> tracepath 195.75.145.33
>> give?
>
>
> Here is the output:
>
> 1: 195.75.145.33 (195.75.145.33) 0.074ms pmtu
16436
> 1: 195
>
> seems to be a really tricky one...
> What does
> tracepath 195.75.145.33
> give?
Here is the output:
1: 195.75.145.33 (195.75.145.33) 0.074ms pmtu
16436
1: 195.75.145.33 (195.75.145.33) 0.039ms reached
1: 195.75.145.33 (195.75.145.33)
Am Montag, 7. November 2011, 14:15:39 schrieb Massimiliano Ziccardi:
> > could you post the output of
> > ip route
> > with zeroconf disabled?
>
> Here it is!
>
> 192.168.19.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.19.95
> 195.75.145.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 195.7
>
> could you post the output of
> ip route
> with zeroconf disabled?
Here it is!
192.168.19.0/24 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.19.95
195.75.145.0/24 dev eth0 proto kernel scope link src 195.75.145.122
default via 195.75.145.1 dev eth0
Thanks,
Massimiliano
Am Montag, 7. November 2011, 13:47:49 schrieb Massimiliano Ziccardi:
> > you have those link-local entries in your routes (169.254.0.0/16), Try
> > adding
> > NOZEROCONF= yes to /etc/sysconfig/network
>
> Already tried, but no luck...
could you post the output of
ip route
with zeroconf disabled?
> you have those link-local entries in your routes (169.254.0.0/16), Try
> adding
> NOZEROCONF= yes to /etc/sysconfig/network
Already tried, but no luck...
Thanks,
Massimiliano
Hi All.
>The routes and ifconfig seems correct to me.
>How is the router configured?
>I specifically mean, does it have any firewall configurations redirecting
>SSH-traffic to your machine?
I don't have access to the routers, however they are used for many other
servers too.
Moreover, I tried th
Hi,
Am Montag, 7. November 2011, 13:15:53 schrieb Massimiliano Ziccardi:
> I thought it was a routing problem, but as you can see, the routes I sent
> seems to be ok.
you have those link-local entries in your routes (169.254.0.0/16), Try adding
NOZEROCONF= yes to /etc/sysconfig/network
Best,
Mi
On Mon, November 7, 2011 1:15 pm, Massimiliano Ziccardi wrote:
> What about the documentation?
>> I have noticed that most binary distros require the use of their
>> graphical
>> admin tools to make any changes to the configuration.
>
>
> I read the documentation and tried to carefully follow it. N
>
> Please do NOT top-post
Sorry.
If asking questions on how to do things on non-Gentoo installations,
> please always mention the distribution in your email.
Ok, sorry again!
What about the documentation?
> I have noticed that most binary distros require the use of their graphical
> admin to
Please do NOT top-post.
On Mon, November 7, 2011 12:34 pm, Massimiliano Ziccardi wrote:
> You are totally right: I'm not using gentoo, but I'm serching for help and
> gentoo's mailing list is the most technical one: I'm truly sorry for the
> OT.
If asking questions on how to do things on non-Gent
Already done.
I asked here because I hoped someone would be able to give me some hint
about why with the routes I sent in the previous e-mail pinging the default
gateway it
pings itself (I verified that pinging every server with address
195.75.145.xxx pings the server itself as if it was a loopback
Hi,
Am Montag, 7. November 2011, 12:13:58 schrieb Massimiliano Ziccardi:
> Hi All.
>
> This problem is not strictly related to gentoo, however I'm sure someone
> here will be able to help me in some way: sorry if I bother you!
have a look at:
http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/5.1/Deployment_Guid
Am 07/11/2011 12:13, schrieb Massimiliano Ziccardi:
Hi All.
[SNIP]
Please!! Do you have any advice?
yes. read and follow the manuals provided by your distribution (your
description doesn't sound gentoo-ish, but EVERY distro should have this
in their documentation).
Thanks,
Massimiliano
You are totally right: I'm not using gentoo, but I'm serching for help and
gentoo's mailing list is the most technical one: I'm truly sorry for the OT.
Just some hint about what could be wrong or some command to launch to
understand what's wrong would be great: I'm getting crazy!!
My distribution
On Mon, November 7, 2011 12:13 pm, Massimiliano Ziccardi wrote:
> Hi All.
>
> This problem is not strictly related to gentoo, however I'm sure someone
> here will be able to help me in some way: sorry if I bother you!
>
> I'm having a really strange problem: for some reason, everytime I reboot
> my
Hi All.
This problem is not strictly related to gentoo, however I'm sure someone
here will be able to help me in some way: sorry if I bother you!
I'm having a really strange problem: for some reason, everytime I reboot my
server, the default gateway gets attached to the 'lo' interface, even if I
27 matches
Mail list logo
