Problems getting 2 NICs to work.

[Kevin Kimmell]

I didn't realize I was "hijacking" a thread. I reviewed all of the 
threads that accumulated over the weekend and didn't see anything that 
appeared to cover this topic. I did post this same message to a forum 
and have got little response so I thought posting to this somewhat 
active list might garner quicker help. I apologize for any rules that I 
broke.

The patch level I'm using is .2188 on all machines.

Running the "ping -I eth1 yahoo.com" results in an unknow host error. 
All troubleshooting techniques that I would use for normal network 
problems seem to say that traffic isn't getting past the machine when I 
have the 2nd NIC running.

The separate IPs are set up on two physically separate NICs so I am not 
using aliases. Since the 2 different class C's are running over the same 
switch plane I did initially try to use virtual/aliased IPs on the main 
eth interface but when I had problems decided to just enable the 2nd NICs.

The newest machine that I set up is using patch level 2115 and I let 
Fedora do the networking setup via the graphical installation and I gave 
each ethernet interface an available IP on the two different networks 
but it still has this same problem. I'm reading that entire HOW-TO now 
and hope to find something to help. If anyone has anything else for me 
to try, I'd appreciate any pointers.

Thanks,
Kevin

Alexander Dalloz wrote:

>Am Mo, den 17.05.2004 schrieb Kevin Kimmell um 15:28:
>
>First: please do not hijack foreign threads. Do not reply to articles
>you won't reply to but start with an empty new email editor window. Your
>posting now appears as a reply to "Re: How to install?"
>
>  
>
>>I've got several HP Proliant servers running mostly Fedora versions of 
>>redhat. I'm using kernel 2.4.22-1 right now on the ones that are 
>>problematic.
>>    
>>
>
>Important is the patch level numbering. So 2.4.22-1.2115 is initial FC1
>kernel, .2188 is latest bugfixing kernel.
>
>  
>
>>These MBs on the HPs have dual gigabit ethernet controllers in them. 
>>/proc/pci reports them correctly as "Broadcom Corporation NetXtreme 
>>BCM5704 Gigabit Ethernet (rev 2)".
>>
>>I've got two public class C networks with two separate ISPs. When I 
>>initialize eth0 to either of my public IP ranges with their respective 
>>gateways everything works just fine. So now I'm trying to add an IP from 
>>the other ISP's range so that I've got multiple pathways to these public 
>>servers.
>>
>>Whether I add a virtual copy of eth0 with the other ISPs IP/gateway 
>>combo or if I plug eth1 into the switch and give it one, networking 
>>stops working. I should mention that both ISPs come in to the same 
>>router and are in the smae switch plane so all wires from the servers 
>>are on the same set of switches.
>>
>>Here's the route table when things are ok:
>>Kernel IP routing table
>>Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
>>204.117.218.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
>>169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
>>127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
>>default 204.117.218.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
>>
>>What the hell is that 169.254.0.0 statement? I've searched hi and lo and 
>>can't figure it out. I'm making a blind guess that it's an IPv6 thing? I 
>>didn't put it there and removing it doesn't survive a reboot.
>>    
>>
>
>That was now explained several times here on the list. See
>http://www.zeroconf.org/ and the list's archive. It has nothing to do
>with IPv6. How to deactivate it please consult the lists's archive.
>
>  
>
>>Anyhow, at this point all networking is fine. I can ping and trace out 
>>and vice versa. Now, when I initialize eth1 here's the table:
>>
>>Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
>>12.168.88.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
>>204.117.218.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
>>169.254.0.0 * 255.255.0.0 U 0 0 0 eth1
>>127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
>>default 204.117.218.254 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
>>    
>>
>
>Well, the default route is still on the eth0 device.
>
>  
>
>>As soon as this is activated, networking stops functioning. I can't ping 
>>in or out. Am I missing some key step? I know that it works becasue I'm 
>>running a firewall on another machine that's running a 2.4.20 kernel and 
>>it was autoconfigured and it's functioning properly.
>>    
>>
>
>I would imagine if you run "ping -I eth1 $target" it will result in ping
>replies?
>
>  
>
>>Can anyone give me a clue?
>>    
>>
>
>Check
>
>http://lartc.org/
>
>http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/Adv-Routing-HOWTO/
>
>for advanced routing howtos. You will have to use advanced features to
>handle both different uplinks / class C nets.
>
>  
>
>>Thanks,
>>Kevin
>>    
>>
>
>Btw. how did you set up those 508 IPs for this server? Do you use
>aliased ethernet devices or the more modern setup way using iproute
>(command ip)?
>
>Alexander
>
>
>  
>