Lars Sorensen wrote:
> [root@localhost ~]# cat /root/ifcfg-bond0
> DEVICE=bond0
> BOOTPROTO=none
> ONBOOT=yes
> USERCTL=no
> IPADDR=0.0.0.0
>
> [root@localhost ~]# cat /root/ifcfg-bond0.10
> DEVICE=bond0.10
> BOOTPROTO=none
> ONBOOT=yes
> USERCTL=no
> REORDER_HDR=no
> IPADDR=212.xx.xx.248
> NETMASK=255.255.255.224
> GATEWAY=212.xx.xx.225
>
> [root@localhost ~]# cat /etc/sysconfig/static-routes
> net 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 gw 212.xx.xx.228
>
That looks about how I do it on some of our servers, except for the
second bonded interface. Why make a second bonded interface? Which is
what I see you doing with bond0.10? With our bonded interfaces we setup
everything in bond0 (and bond1, etc). Only if I have need another
virtual interface do I setup one like bond0.10.
--
Ceterum censeo, Carthago delenda est.
Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
(828) 350-2415
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Hi Mark,
Yeah I was wondering that too :-)
Actually the setup is what I saw on a server that one of the previous
guys setup.
But due to my lack of experience in this matter I am wondering why it
was set up like this.
What would could be the reason for this kind of setup ?
Best regards
Lars Sorensen
The only thing I can think of is that the person setting it up might
have planned for additional virtual interfaces. Or maybe that's how he
learned to set it up.
Regardless, if it works, it works. It's just not the best way to setup
a single bonded interface, IMO. It's adds an additional layer of
complexity that doesn't need to be there. Like I said earlier, I have 2
machines that have bonded interfaces with virtual interfaces on the
bonded if. It's not setup like that either. Bond0 is the primary IP,
and the virtual if's are Bond0.1, Bond0.2, etc.
--
Ceterum censeo, Carthago delenda est.
Mark Haney
Sr. Systems Administrator
ERC Broadband
(828) 350-2415
