[ale] Multi-homed server networking

[Kenneth Ratliff]

As long as none of the servers are doing ip forwarding all he needs to  
do is hook the backend up and assign the IP's. Nothing on the frontend  
network will have a route to the backend network, so no communication  
between the two will be possible.

If he wants his backend network to have a route out of the subnet  
things get a little more complicated, but this just sounds like he  
wants to hook a bunch of second NIC's to a totally seperate switch  
that will be used just for the servers communicating on the second  
NIC's.


On May 11, 2009, at 3:35 PM, Jeff Lightner wrote:

> I don’t see how bonding would do what he wants.  He wants to  
> separate traffic – not combine it.
>
> What we do for separate traffic (we do it for a backup LAN on GigE  
> network while primary is on 10/100) is simply assign the IPs to a  
> different <hostname>b instead of just <hostname>.  The only traffic  
> that can find other hosts on the backup LAN have to look for it by  
> that secondary name with the “b” appended.
>
> For example:  hostname = winsuck then the secondary IP would only be  
> known by winsuckb.   A configuration for Samba expecting shares from  
> winsuck wouldn’t see them from winsuckb even if they were there  
> because it wouldn’t be looking for anything at that name.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20090512/034efcfd/attachment.html 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://mail.ale.org/pipermail/ale/attachments/20090512/034efcfd/attachment.bin