Project Home
Project Home
Wiki
Wiki
Discussion Forums
Discussions
Project Information
Project Info
Forum Topic - Multiples Interfaces on the same Network: (2 Items)
   
Multiples Interfaces on the same Network  
Hello, I need to use two network interfaces in the same logical network. For example, configuring 192.168.0.1/24 and 192
.168.0.2/24 Ip address to each interface.

But, using netstat -r, I can see that, only exists one route for the network 192.168.0.0/24, and using the first 
interface.

I tried to add a new route for the same network that uses the second interface, but as result I've obtained an error 
like "file exists".

The reason of such configuration, is to have redundancy of NIC's in my clients. But, the only way to obtain it, is 
dinamicaly configuring the NIC's when a fail is detected.

Is possible to get a configuration to reach my objective of redundancy?. Two Nics with two IP addresses in the same 
network, an so, two posible routes to my network. And when a NIC fail, the other NIC start to work, due the existent 
route in the routing table.

Thanks in advance

Gabriel
Re: Multiples Interfaces on the same Network  
On Wed, Sep 02, 2009 at 08:48:02AM -0400, Gabriel Cane wrote:
> Hello, I need to use two network interfaces in the same logical network. For example, configuring 192.168.0.1/24 and 
192.168.0.2/24 Ip address to each interface.
> 
> But, using netstat -r, I can see that, only exists one route for the network 192.168.0.0/24, and using the first 
interface.
> 
> I tried to add a new route for the same network that uses the second interface, but as result I've obtained an error 
like "file exists".
> 
> The reason of such configuration, is to have redundancy of NIC's in my clients. But, the only way to obtain it, is 
dinamicaly configuring the NIC's when a fail is detected.
> 
> Is possible to get a configuration to reach my objective of redundancy?. Two Nics with two IP addresses in the same 
network, an so, two posible routes to my network. And when a NIC fail, the other NIC start to work, due the existent 
route in the routing table.
> 
> Thanks in advance

This isn't currently possible without some manual intervention
as you've discovered.  What you really need is 'agr' but it's
not currently supported:

http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?agr++NetBSD-current

-seanb