replan the networking and start from scratch again - otherwise, it's a long process to fix anything (as you are just testing).
On Tue, 7 Apr 2020 at 17:49, Marc-Andre Jutras <[email protected]> wrote: > Not recommended mainly because it generate some weird routing problem... > > from your test, check your routing table on your CVM: Same subnet on > different interfaces... ( eth1 and eth2 ) > > > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use > Iface > 0.0.0.0 172.26.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth2 > 8.8.4.4 172.26.0.1 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth1 > 8.8.8.8 172.26.0.1 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth1 > 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 > 172.26.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 > 172.26.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth2 > > > Depending on your router, what you can do is to divide your > 172.26.0.0/24 in 2... > Public on 172.26.0.0/25, gateway on your router: 172.26.0.1 > Management on 172.26.0.128/25, gateway on your router: 172.26.0.129 > > On 2020-04-07 8:54 AM, F5 wrote: > > Yes, is this configuration not allowed? > > > > How could I get around this, as I don't have another routed network. > -- Andrija Panić
