Google "linux policy based routing". In your example you just need to setup different gateways for both interfaces. For example: ip route add default via 69.2.237.57 dev eth0 tab 1 ip route add default via 192.168.1.1 dev eth1 tab 2 On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 9:23 AM, isplist@xxxxxxxxxxxx <isplist@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Is there a good document somewhere which explains in not too great technical > terms how to use multiple nics on a system. I've been running bonded nics for > many years but getting a machine to use two (or more networks) is still a > mystery to me. > > For example, I have a VoIP machine which has two nics which I have problems > with because I don't understand the above yet. > > This machine has a nic allows incoming VoIP/ZIP connections to it's public IP > address on a T1. The router blocks everything but that traffic. > > Then it has a second nic which has a private IP on it to allow for management > of the machine. Yet recently, it lost it's DNS, it can't seem to get access to > DNS on it's own. I can force it to use DNS by typing ping commands a couple of > times but it cannot do it on it's own to get it's updates for example. > > Basically, I need the machine to see it's public gateway at xx.x.237.59 to > route it's VoIP/SIP traffic but I also need it to see it's private gateway at > 192.168.1.0 so that it can use DNS and other internal services properly. > > route -n > Kernel IP routing table > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface > xx.x.237.56 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.248 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 > 0.0.0.0 69.2.237.57 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 > > ifconfig > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:90:27:DC:4B:E6 > inet addr:xx.x.237.59 Bcast:69.2.237.63 Mask:255.255.255.248 > inet6 addr: fe80::290:27ff:fedc:4be6/64 Scope:Link > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > RX packets:33910280 errors:16 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:16 > TX packets:45988648 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:24746 txqueuelen:1000 > RX bytes:681966199 (650.3 MiB) TX bytes:1657358619 (1.5 GiB) > > eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:13:20:55:D7:CE > inet addr:192.168.1.102 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 > inet6 addr: fe80::213:20ff:fe55:d7ce/64 Scope:Link > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 > RX packets:87417784 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > TX packets:70881957 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:1000 > RX bytes:4171601084 (3.8 GiB) TX bytes:1547562481 (1.4 GiB) > > lo Link encap:Local Loopback > inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 > inet6 addr: ::1/128 Scope:Host > UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 > RX packets:6501004 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 > TX packets:6501004 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 > collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 > RX bytes:897257336 (855.6 MiB) TX bytes:897257336 (855.6 MiB) > > > Mike > > > > > On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:39:50 -0700, Alex Kompel wrote: > > You will still need some way to tell the system through which > > > > interface you want to route outgoing packets for each target. > > You can achieve the same with greater ease by splitting the network in > > 2 subnets and assigning each to a single interface. > > It all depends on the problem you are trying to solve. If you want > > redundancy - use active-passive bonding, you want throughput - use > > active-active bonding (if your switch supports link aggregation), if > > you want security and isolation - use separate subnets. > > > > -Alex > > > > 2008/3/12 Brian Kroth <bpkroth@xxxxxxxx>: > >> This is a hypothetical, but what if you have two interfaces on the same > >> network and want to force one service IP to one interface and the other > >> to a different interface? I think what everyone is wondering is how > >> much control one has over the service IP placement. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Brian > >> > >> Finnur Örn Guðmundsson - TM Software <fog@xxxx> 2008-03-12 14:36: > >> > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> I see no reason why you could not have 3 diffrent interfaces, each > >>> connected to the networks you are trying to serve the NFS requests > >>> to/from. RG Manager will add the floating interfaces to the "correct" > >>> interface, that is, if your floating ip is 1.2.3.4 and you have a > >>> interface with the IP address 1.2.3.3 he will add the IP to that > >>> interface. > >>> > >>> > >>> Bgrds, > >>> Finnur > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: linux-cluster-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:linux-cluster- > >>> bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of gordan@xxxxxxxxxx > >>> Sent: 12. mars 2008 14:10 > >>> To: linux clustering > >>> Subject: Re: Two node NFS cluster serving multiple > >>> networks > >>> > >>> Sounds very similar to what I'm trying to achieve (see the other thread > >>> about binding failover resources to interfaces). I've not seen a > >>> response > >>> yet, so I'm most curious to see if you'll get any. > >>> > >>> Gordan > >>> > >>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Randy Brown wrote: > >>> > >>>> I am using a two node cluster with Centos 5 with up to date patches. > >>>> We have > >>>> three different networks to which I would like to serve nfs mounts > >>>> from this > >>>> cluster. Can this even be done? I have interfaces available for each > >>>> network in each node? > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> Linux-cluster mailing list > >>> Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Linux-cluster mailing list > >>> Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > >>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > >>> > >> -- > >> Linux-cluster mailing list > >> Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > >> > > > > -- > > Linux-cluster mailing list > > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > > > > > -- > Linux-cluster mailing list > Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster > -- Linux-cluster mailing list Linux-cluster@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster
