Re: Second ethernet without router?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




It sounds like this is what you did...look at output of the route command to see what the default route is.

You don't need a router to connect together the second interfaces as long as they are all on the same subnet.

John

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007, Troy Amburg wrote:

You might want make sure you didn't set the default route for the entire host to 192.168.1.1.

On Nov 28, 2007, at 3:39 PM, Steven Buehler wrote:

	I have several servers running on public IP's all on their eth0's.
They of course have a router -> switch -> servers. I would like to setup a local net on the eth1's of each server, but I don't have a router. Just the switch and servers. I must have goofed something up pretty bad because I setup the eth1 on one of the servers to have an IP of 192.168.1.1, Mask of 255.255.255.0 and gateway of 192.168.1.1. The second server was an IP of 192.168.1.2, Mask of 255.255.255.0 and gateway of 192.168.1.1. After doing
an "ifup eth1" on each machine, the public IP's on the eth0's can't be
reached any more either. Do I need to have a separate router and switch to
do this?

Thanks
Steve

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

--
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list

[Index of Archives]     [CentOS]     [Kernel Development]     [PAM]     [Fedora Users]     [Red Hat Development]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Linux Admin]     [Gimp]     [Asterisk PBX]     [Yosemite News]     [Red Hat Crash Utility]


  Powered by Linux