Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!awfulhak.demon.co.uk!awfulhak.demon.co.uk!awfulhak.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail From: brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk (Brian Somers) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Dual Ethernet Cards Date: 16 Sep 1996 17:33:51 +0100 Organization: Coverform Ltd. Lines: 40 Message-ID: <51jvhf$gs@anorak.coverform.lan> References: <3238986E.446B@phoenix.net> <51e7kt$jh@anorak.coverform.lan> <323C7859.1CFB@phoenix.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.coverform.lan X-NNTP-Posting-Host: awfulhak.demon.co.uk X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2] Geoff Mohler (gemohler@phoenix.net) wrote: : Brian Somers wrote: : > : How can I have two cards, and two default gateways with : > : FreeBSD 2.1.5. : > : > You can't. The default gateway is the target for all packets that havn't : > got a specific entry in your routing table. It doesn't make sense to have : > two defaults. Have a look at the route man page - it's a bit cryptic : > unless you already know what it says ...... : > : > What specifically are you trying to achieve ? : I am hosting two very large ftp and www sites on once machine..a machine : that has : plenty of capacity for it. : But I want to multihome this machine and its services, across two : physical : ethernet cards, and two networks. But I do not want to route between : the two. Umm, I don't know of any support for this except that I recall seeing a posting about some ppp patches..... anyone remember ? I believe these patches routed a single IP number across two modems. If that was acceptable, you could alias the second IP in there - but I suspect you're talking about NICs - not tun interfaces. I think that the lack of such support is because it isn't a part of the RIP protocol.... but I'm gettin' lost at this point :( I suspect that you *can't* do what you want as at the hardware layer, the traffic that you're sending out is not associated with the data that came in on the same stream at the tcp layer. Therefore, the routing protocols can't know which interface to use without specific routing info. The best you could get is a low level load-balancing capability. This - I'm fairly sure isn't there now. -- Brian <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....