new member - test post

new member - test post

[Jake Ravenwood]

new member - test post. pls ignore.


      

wrong default route

[Jake Ravenwood]

I have a server out there that i remotely manage.  i had a downtime the other day when we
restarted network services. then we found a wrong default route is laoded on the server
upon restart. i have the configs below. The defaultroute should be 
GATEWAY=192.168.65.142  but it loaded GATEWAY=10.2.1.14 upon restart.
Could it be the sequence the interfaces are enabled from eth0 then eth1 then eth5, the
last interface activated its own gateway as the default?

Should i delete the gateway on eth0 and eth5 such that it would make sure only the
defaultgateway on eth1 is loaded upon restart?

i just can't restart network services and see what happens, the server is in production
and it takes a lot of authorization before i can restart it. 

thanks,
june


/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0
DEVICE=eth0
ONBOOT=no
BOOTPROTO=static
IPADDR=10.11.13.150
NETMASK=255.255.255.192
GATEWAY=10.11.13.129
HOSTNAME=web2003
HWADDR=00:19:BB:AB:CD:EF
ETHTOOL_OPTS="speed
100 duplex full autoneg off"


/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth1
DEVICE=eth1
HWADDR=00:19:BB:AA:DD:CC
ONBOOT=yes
TYPE=Ethernet
IPADDR=192.168.65.131
NETMASK=255.255.255.240
GATEWAY=192.168.65.142
HOSTNAME=web2003.domain.net
ETHTOOL_OPTS="speed
100 duplex full autoneg off"


/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth5
DEVICE=eth5
HWADDR=00:18:FE:BB:CC:DD
ONBOOT=yes
TYPE=Ethernet
BOOTPROTO=static
IPADDR=10.2.1.1
NETMASK=255.255.255.240
GATEWAY=10.2.1.14
HOSTNAME=web2003.domain.net
ETHTOOL_OPTS="speed
100 duplex full autoneg off"



      

Re: wrong default route

[Jake Ravenwood]

thanks for the answers. can you confirm that the should be default route eth1 was overwritten by eth5 gateway? 



      

Re: wrong default route

[Striker]

Quoting Jake Ravenwood <jakeravenwood@yahoo.com>: Jake Ravenwood once said:

> thanks for the answers. can you confirm that the should be default 
> route eth1 was overwritten by eth5 gateway?

Would those who have answered Jake, PLEASE respond to the list also,
for the benefit of all list members?

Thanks

>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-admin" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Re: wrong default route

[Yuri Csapo]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1576 bytes --]

Oops sorry Striker, this list has been quiet for so long I forgot my 
manners. Anyway my answer was:

"Hi Jake and welcome to the list. You only need one default gateway. I 
don't know why some distros do it like this and seem to encourage you to 
enter a gateway for each interface; my suggestion is to leave the 
GATEWAY entry blank for all entries except the actual one.

Yuri"



Striker wrote:
> Quoting Jake Ravenwood <jakeravenwood@yahoo.com>: Jake Ravenwood once said:
> 
>> thanks for the answers. can you confirm that the should be default 
>> route eth1 was overwritten by eth5 gateway?
> 
> Would those who have answered Jake, PLEASE respond to the list also,
> for the benefit of all list members?
> 
> Thanks
> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-admin" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-admin" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

-- 
Yuri Csapo
Academic Computing & Networking
Colorado School of Mines
CT-256
Phone:  (303) 273-3503
Fax:      (303) 273-3475
Email:   ycsapo@mines.edu

Please use the following link to open a service request:
http://helpdesk.mines.edu
===========================================
With a PC, I always felt limited
by the software available.
On Unix, I am limited only by my knowledge.
--Peter J. Schoenster

[-- Attachment #2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature, Size: 2840 bytes --]

Re: wrong default route

[Ben Kevan]

On Tuesday 08 July 2008 08:43:48 am you wrote:
> Quoting Jake Ravenwood <jakeravenwood@yahoo.com>: Jake Ravenwood once said:
> > thanks for the answers. can you confirm that the should be default
> > route eth1 was overwritten by eth5 gateway?
>
> Would those who have answered Jake, PLEASE respond to the list also,
> for the benefit of all list members?
>
> Thanks

I was thinking the same thing, then I honestly thought Jake may have been 
talking to himself? 

Jake, can you forward the resolution email to the list, or the original author 
please re-reply to the list? It would be good to have in the thread. 

Re: wrong default route

[Striker]

Quoting Yuri Csapo <ycsapo@mines.edu>: Yuri Csapo once said:

>
> "Hi Jake and welcome to the list. You only need one default gateway. I
> don't know why some distros do it like this and seem to encourage you to
> enter a gateway for each interface; my suggestion is to leave the
> GATEWAY entry blank for all entries except the actual one.
>
> Yuri"

Thank you, Yuri. Your reply is exactly what I was thinking, but not 
being a networking guru, I hesitated to reply. Thanks for your answer.

Re: wrong default route

[Jake Ravenwood]

thank you for all answers and suggestions. I am modifying my network settings to only one GATEWAY defined.

-jake


--- On Tue, 7/8/08, Striker <jevb+admin@tuffmail.com> wrote:

> From: Striker <jevb+admin@tuffmail.com>
> Subject: Re: wrong default route
> To: linux-admin@vger.kernel.org
> Date: Tuesday, July 8, 2008, 4:15 PM
> Quoting Yuri Csapo <ycsapo@mines.edu>: Yuri Csapo once
> said:
> 
> >
> > "Hi Jake and welcome to the list. You only need
> one default gateway. I
> > don't know why some distros do it like this and
> seem to encourage you to
> > enter a gateway for each interface; my suggestion is
> to leave the
> > GATEWAY entry blank for all entries except the actual
> one.
> >
> > Yuri"
> 
> Thank you, Yuri. Your reply is exactly what I was thinking,
> but not 
> being a networking guru, I hesitated to reply. Thanks for
> your answer.
> 
> 
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
> "unsubscribe linux-admin" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at 
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


      

Re: wrong default route

[Striker]

Quoting Jake Ravenwood <jakeravenwood@yahoo.com>: Jake Ravenwood once said:

>
> thank you for all answers and suggestions. I am modifying my network 
> settings to only one GATEWAY defined.
>
> -jake

That's great, Jake. Please let us know how it works out.


Cheers

Fwd: wrong default route

[Herta Van den Eynde]

Apologies for using "Reply" instead of "Reply to all".  I'm used to
mailinglists putting the mailinglist's address in the reply-to field.
Any reason why this mailing list does not do that?

Anyway, below is my first reply.

Kind regards,

Herta


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Herta Van den Eynde <herta.vandeneynde@gmail.com>
Date: 2008/7/8
Subject: Re: wrong default route
To: jakeravenwood@yahoo.com


2008/7/8 Jake Ravenwood <jakeravenwood@yahoo.com>:
> I have a server out there that i remotely manage.  i had a downtime the other day when we
> restarted network services. then we found a wrong default route is laoded on the server
> upon restart. i have the configs below. The defaultroute should be
> GATEWAY=192.168.65.142  but it loaded GATEWAY=10.2.1.14 upon restart.
> Could it be the sequence the interfaces are enabled from eth0 then eth1 then eth5, the
> last interface activated its own gateway as the default?
>
> Should i delete the gateway on eth0 and eth5 such that it would make sure only the
> defaultgateway on eth1 is loaded upon restart?
>
> i just can't restart network services and see what happens, the server is in production
> and it takes a lot of authorization before i can restart it.
>
> thanks,
> june
>
>
> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0
> DEVICE=eth0
> ONBOOT=no
> BOOTPROTO=static
> IPADDR=10.11.13.150
> NETMASK=255.255.255.192
> GATEWAY=10.11.13.129
> HOSTNAME=web2003
> HWADDR=00:19:BB:AB:CD:EF
> ETHTOOL_OPTS="speed
> 100 duplex full autoneg off"
>
>
> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth1
> DEVICE=eth1
> HWADDR=00:19:BB:AA:DD:CC
> ONBOOT=yes
> TYPE=Ethernet
> IPADDR=192.168.65.131
> NETMASK=255.255.255.240
> GATEWAY=192.168.65.142
> HOSTNAME=web2003.domain.net
> ETHTOOL_OPTS="speed
> 100 duplex full autoneg off"
>
>
> /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth5
> DEVICE=eth5
> HWADDR=00:18:FE:BB:CC:DD
> ONBOOT=yes
> TYPE=Ethernet
> BOOTPROTO=static
> IPADDR=10.2.1.1
> NETMASK=255.255.255.240
> GATEWAY=10.2.1.14
> HOSTNAME=web2003.domain.net
> ETHTOOL_OPTS="speed
> 100 duplex full autoneg off"
>

Add the default gateway to /etc/sysconfig/network.  Use static routes
for the others.

Kind regards,

Herta

--
"Life on Earth may be expensive,
 but it comes with a free ride around the Sun."



-- 
"Life on Earth may be expensive,
 but it comes with a free ride around the Sun."

Re: Fwd: wrong default route

[Glynn Clements]

Herta Van den Eynde wrote:

> Apologies for using "Reply" instead of "Reply to all".  I'm used to
> mailinglists putting the mailinglist's address in the reply-to field.
> Any reason why this mailing list does not do that?

Because the Reply-To header "belongs" to the author.

Occasionally, it may be desirable to post private replies, and
"stealing" the Reply-To header prevents that (mail clients won't let
you reply to the From address if a Reply-To header exists).

Not only does a forced Reply-To header prevent the message from being
sent directly to the user, but will cause it to be sent to a public
mailing list instead. If the reply was intending to be private, the
message may well contain information which shouldn't be made public.

The author can always choose to add their own Reply-To header if they
never want to receive off-list replies.

Having the mailing list set its own Reply-To header is a workaround
for "non-technical" lists, where many of the subscribers may not
understand the difference between "reply" and "follow-up".

Presumably the vger admins (naïvely) assumed that a list targeted to
Linux sysadmins doesn't need such workarounds.

-- 
Glynn Clements <glynn@gclements.plus.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-admin" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html