On Friday 22 September 2006 14:00, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: >Gene Heskett wrote: >> I got this back, but I'll sanitze the outside addresses to protect the >> guilty. :-) >> >> ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- >> >> Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: howto isolate 2 nics? >> Date: Friday 22 September 2006 13:20 >> From: Jim Hines <jhines@xxxxxxxx> >> To: Gene Heskett <gene.heskett@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> >>> Please post the results of route -n and ifconfig -a. It sounds like >>> you may have a default route issue. >>> >>> Bob... >> >> route -n >> Kernel IP routing table >> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface >> 66.xx.xx.xx 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.240 U 0 0 0 eth0 >> 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 >> 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 >> 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo >> 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.12 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1 >> >> >> >> ifconfig -a >> >> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:CC:5F:7C:6B >> inet addr:66.xx.xx.xx Bcast:66.xx.xx.xx >> Mask:255.255.255.240 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 >> Metric:1 RX packets:16990702 errors:1 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX >> packets:8227520 errors:3 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:3 collisions:0 >> txqueuelen:100 >> RX bytes:3080066568 (2937.3 Mb) TX bytes:1206913340 (1151.0 >> Mb) Interrupt:5 Base address:0x9000 >> >> eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:50:DA:B4:0E:93 >> inet addr:192.168.1.3 Bcast:192.168.1.255 >> Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 >> RX packets:62903099 errors:1 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:1 >> TX packets:58704388 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 >> collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 >> RX bytes:1244767257 (1187.1 Mb) TX bytes:3080714873 (2937.9 >> Mb) Interrupt:12 Base address:0xd800 >> >> lo Link encap:Local Loopback >> inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 >> UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 >> RX packets:2274417 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 >> TX packets:2274417 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 >> collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 >> RX bytes:450462974 (429.5 Mb) TX bytes:450462974 (429.5 Mb) > >The default route is through eth1 with a gateway of 192.168.1.12. It >should be through eth0 with what ever gateway address is provided by >the ISP. And then the local machines servers are not usable at the local address using the local version of its FQDN, so this isn't a working option. >This is why traffic for the Internet, that should go out >eth0, is going out eth1. It looks like the default route was set the >way it was in order to get to the 169.254.0.0 network through >192.168.1.12 instead of providing a proper route to that network. If >this is the case, then what is needed instead is a route specificity >for 169.254.0.0 using 192.168.1.12 as the gateway. > The 169 address is a red herring, that like 3 day old fish, should be thrown out. Its a redhat/fedora artifact I believe, for what useage I have no idea. All I know is its there on every fedora machine since about FC3 or 4, my lappy FC5 has it, and it is not setup in any config file anyplace. And it is not part of any network or subnet at that site. I think we're losing track of the real problem by being distracted by the 169 address. We'd kill it if we knew how to do it. Thanks, Mikkel >-- > > Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, >for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup! -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
