howto isolate 2 nics?
Mikkel L. Ellertson
mikkel at infinity-ltd.com
Fri Sep 22 19:26:42 UTC 2006
Tod Merley wrote:
> On 9/22/06, Mikkel L. Ellertson <mikkel at infinity-ltd.com> wrote:
>> The default route is through eth1 with a gateway of 192.168.1.12. It
>> should be through eth0 with what ever gateway address is provided by
>> the ISP. This is why traffic for the Internet, that should g out
>> eth0, is going out eth1. It looks like the default route was set the
>> way it was in order to get to the 169.254.0.0 network through
>> 192.168.1.12 instead of providing a proper route to that network. If
>> this is the case, then what is needed instead is a route specificity
>> for 169.254.0.0 using 192.168.1.12 as the gateway.
>>
>> Mikkel
>>
> Hi Mikkel!
>
> Just wondering. The IP 169.254.0.0 looks a bit strange (I thought .0
> was not allowed or represented some kind of broadcast. Also the
> address when "whois"ed references RFC 3330 and there I find it
> mentioned as:
>
> 169.254.0.0/16 - This is the "link local" block. It is allocated for
> communication between hosts on a single link. Hosts obtain these
> addresses by auto-configuration, such as when a DHCP server may not be
> found.
>
> My thinking when I saw it is that it is part of Zeroconf - which I
> simply do not understand. I would think that if he sets the network
> up by hand or by using DHCP on the local network from his mentioned
> machine the reference to 169.254.0.0/16 becomes moot.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Tod
>
Hi Tod,
From other messages, it does sound like we can ignore the
169.254.0.0. I guess I should have specified that 169.254.0.0 is a
network address, and not a host address. Most routes are to
networks, and not specific hosts. You can specify the route to a
specific host as well. But it usually isn't needed unless you have a
point to point connection.
Mikkel
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons,
for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
More information about the users
mailing list