Multi-homed servers with a private ethernet

Multi-homed servers with a private ethernet

Post by Carl Brew » Sat, 12 Nov 1994 12:43:14



I recall a few months ago (um, maybe it was 12 months!)
someone posted a guide to setting up servers with multiple
ethernet ports so they could have a private ethernet
connecting themselves.  

At the time, it was relevant, but we decided against it, and so
I deleted the note about it.

Now, a coleague wants to know how it's done (I guess he got
a few SCSI cards with extra UTP ports, and wants to use them :) )
and I offered to find the article for him.  

If anyone has a copy, I'd be really grateful for it!

thanks in advance

Carl

--
Carl Brewer                             Ph :61-9-380-1893 | #include \
Systems/Network Officer, Reid Library   Fax:61-9-380-1012 | <std_disclaimer.h>

Woooo, speed hump cat ....              beable

 
 
 

1. arping confusion multi-homed private networks

Here's the layout:

Server A supports several devices (single-board computers booting from
the server). These are DHCP/BOOTP over the servers eth1 device, based
at 192.168.2.1, into a subnet 192.168.2.0/24.

Server B does the exact same thing over his eth1, based at
192.168.2.1, also into a subnet 192.168.2.0/24.

The idea is that seach server provides a standalone environment and
isolates the eth1 network and everything is fine. The eth0 and eth1
ports are not routed to each other internally.

Now, the two machines are added to a network, 192.168.1.0/24 using
their respective eth0 portsm say A DHCPs for its eth0 at 192.168.1.10
and B receives 192.168.1.11.

The problem arises when arping happens in the ifup script (RHEL5),
when it seems that eth0 of the first machine to boot responds to
arping that yes, 192.168.2.1 is in use when the second machine boots,
preventing the isolated network from starting properly even though
there should be no connections between these subnets.

Sure, I could make A and B private networks .2.x and .3.x, but then I
have to maintain different configurations and I see no reason I should
have to do so.

Anyone that can offer any insights as to how to prevent this "false"
arping response? More to the point, why does eth0 respond to the
arping when that is not really in eth0's realm?

2. question about sparc 64-bit user land

3. ? multi home + multi cgi, multi email, multi log, multi support

4. Strangeness with NFS filesystems

5. ? Multi-Homed/Virtual WWW Server Performance

6. ksh question...

7. Multi-homed NFS servers was Re: 1.1.81 seems to break NFS

8. SSI: No variable available in include file

9. Problem with nfs mount with multi-homed Server

10. Help with multi-homed server & automount

11. Multi-homed Web Servers on Linux?

12. Multi-homed on NetSite Communications Server

13. Problem with nfs mount with multi-homed Server