On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 12:12 PM, RobertH <roberth@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Actually, the original issue was system-config-network not keeping static IP information (IP, SM, NS, GW) or at least not throwing a warning. I guess i made it digress.
i can think of many meanings for a "routed subnet" - is it something you buy from your ISP?
Actually, it is commercial cable and doable by other systems, so i am not giving up. i am going to start with studying "ip rules" as opposed to "ip routes". When the same IP configuration is on a laptop connected to both wireless and Cat5 wired behind two different firewalls, they do not have this problem. Granted, these usually use dynamic connections and are not providing critical services, but it works. Why not for static configurations and why doesn't system-config-network at least throw an warning.
Hasn't this been hashed over several times in the past year to the same end
result?
:-)
It appeared to me the original issue (this time) was being able to do
primary and secondary dns on one box with different ip addresses because the
registrar needed two different ip addresses when registering a domain.
Actually, the original issue was system-config-network not keeping static IP information (IP, SM, NS, GW) or at least not throwing a warning. I guess i made it digress.
If you must do it at home and you cannot get this solution to work as you
expect, get a routed subnet on one side.
i can think of many meanings for a "routed subnet" - is it something you buy from your ISP?
or
...better yet, since both links appear to be residential, ask a buddy with a
colo for for access and make it the primary dns and pull secondary on your
residential, or get a VPS server or two, or something else...
Actually, it is commercial cable and doable by other systems, so i am not giving up. i am going to start with studying "ip rules" as opposed to "ip routes". When the same IP configuration is on a laptop connected to both wireless and Cat5 wired behind two different firewalls, they do not have this problem. Granted, these usually use dynamic connections and are not providing critical services, but it works. Why not for static configurations and why doesn't system-config-network at least throw an warning.
Unless it is a pure don't care if down sometimes hobby, having primary and
secondary dns on last mile residential links, regardless of budget or your
reliability perceptions, is not particularly wise.
- rh
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
