similar to: Set an Ethernet Interface Metric

<div style="FONT-FAMILY: Arial; COLOR: rgb(0, 0, 0); FONT-SIZE: 12px"><div>Thanks all for the suggested tips. I confess I tried VMWare hypervisor esxi and found it less complicated to get set up and functioning correctly. <br /><br />I'll have to take up KVM another day, when I'm in less of a hurry to get something up and running right away. <br

Paul, On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Digimer <lists at alteeve.ca> wrote: > On 17/03/16 04:47 PM, paul.greene.va at verizon.net wrote: > > Thanks, I followed the 2nd article, and it got the existing virtual > > machines communicating with each other. > Right, so your VMs are on the same bridge group now (at Layer2 of OSI). > > > > However, any new

On 12 March 2015 at 13:43, Robert Moskowitz <rgm at htt-consult.com> wrote: > I know how to use 'ip' to set up a static route, e.g.: > > ip route add 192.168.128.0/17 via 40.53.24.3 dev eth0 > > But if you reboot or restart network, you loose this. Thus you have to > make it persistant. I found: > >

I want to add the following route command route add -net 192.168.2.0/27 gw 192.168.2.3 via the normal network setup. The result should be the following routing table (the first line): 192.168.2.0/27 via 192.168.2.3 dev xenbr1 scope link 192.168.2.0/27 dev eth2 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.4 192.168.2.0/27 dev xenbr1 proto kernel scope link src 192.168.2.3 192.168.1.0/24 dev xenbr0

On Fri, 2016-03-18 at 13:02 -0400, Mike - st257 wrote: > Paul, > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:47 PM, Digimer <lists at alteeve.ca> wrote: > On 17/03/16 04:47 PM, paul.greene.va at verizon.net wrote: > > Thanks, I followed the 2nd article, and it got the existing > virtual > > machines communicating with each other. > >

Hi, I'd like to bond two existing interfaces and checked the RH EL 6.3 [1] doc. Comparing the current settings of e.g. eth0 to the example config in the docs I wonder what options I still have to use/copy and which I can drop. e.g. what should happen to my RH 6.3 eth0 settings not in the docs? DNS1="............" GATEWAY="........." HWADDR=".........."

Centos 5 is still soon end of life. Using it as ipsec gateway is .. Eero 21.3.2016 7.25 ip. "Mike - st257" <silvertip257 at gmail.com> kirjoitti: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike - st257 <silvertip257 at gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I second Eero's comment, use a new IPSec daemon. > > > > Openswan was forked and became Libreswan. Paul, now

Hi, I'm wanting to configure a CentOS 6 server to have a fall-back default route via a second network interface. Given: - eth0 with 192.168.0.10 on subnet 192.168.0.0/24 gateway 192.168.0.1 - eth1 with 192.168.1.10 on subnet 192.168.1.0/24 gateway 192.168.1.1 Where eth0's network is a "back door" to the internet, and eth1's is the "front door", I believe I can

Err. Sounds like security nightmare. 21.3.2016 7.47 ip. "Glenn Pierce" <glennpierce at gmail.com> kirjoitti: > Will ask my boss :) We are hosted on memset so not so easy to update > > Thanks > > On 21 March 2016 at 17:36, Eero Volotinen <eero.volotinen at iki.fi> wrote: > > Centos 5 is still soon end of life. Using it as ipsec gateway is .. > >

On Wed, February 18, 2015 13:07, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 11:39 AM, James B. Byrne > <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: >> 2. How does one configure the routing table on network startup to >> specifically detail the route particular addresses are supposed to >> take? >> > > Not exactly sure how routing works with aliases on the same

> On May 30, 2017, at 3:26 AM, Walter H. <walter.h at mathemainzel.info> wrote: > > is there a way to influence the order? Not sure what your use of multiple IPs is. . . but I'd probably use an interface alias instead of secondary. https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/6/html/Deployment_Guide/s2-networkscripts-interfaces-alias.html

On Thu, February 19, 2015 12:33, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:48 AM, James B. Byrne > <byrnejb at harte-lyne.ca> wrote: >> >>> I added these directives to the route-eth0:192 file: >>> >>> ADDRESS0=192.168.6.9 >>> NETMASK0=255.255.255.0 >>> GATEWAY0=192.168.6.1 >>> >> >> Which should have been:

Hello All, I have one CentOS 6 KVM virtualization server that I built around a year ago (best I can tell it was in October 2012) at which time I would have been installing 6.3 [0]. That particular install used the Consistent Network Device Naming [1] conventions (PCIe NICs are p1p1, p1p2). I started to build out a new KVM virt server (kickstarting a 6.4 install now as compared to 6.3 back then)

I know how to use 'ip' to set up a static route, e.g.: ip route add 192.168.128.0/17 via 40.53.24.3 dev eth0 But if you reboot or restart network, you loose this. Thus you have to make it persistant. I found: http://www.cyberciti.biz/tips/configuring-static-routes-in-debian-or-red-hat-linux-systems.html where it says to add to ifcfg-eth0: 192.168.128.0/17 via 40.53.24.3 But this

I second Eero's comment, use a new IPSec daemon. Openswan was forked and became Libreswan. Paul, now a RH employee, was a main developer for the Openswan project before he and others created the Libreswan fork. https://libreswan.org/ EL6 has Openswan EL7 has Libreswan Racoon isn't all that fun to work with. If you have the option, ditch it and EL5 and move to a newer platform

Will ask my boss :) We are hosted on memset so not so easy to update Thanks On 21 March 2016 at 17:36, Eero Volotinen <eero.volotinen at iki.fi> wrote: > Centos 5 is still soon end of life. Using it as ipsec gateway is .. > > Eero > 21.3.2016 7.25 ip. "Mike - st257" <silvertip257 at gmail.com> kirjoitti: > >> On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike -

On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:17 PM, Mike - st257 <silvertip257 at gmail.com> wrote: > I second Eero's comment, use a new IPSec daemon. > > Openswan was forked and became Libreswan. Paul, now a RH employee, was a > main developer for the Openswan project before he and others created the > Libreswan fork. > https://libreswan.org/ > > EL6 has Openswan > EL7 has

To be fair its not highly sensitive info we are dealing with. -----Original Message----- From: "Eero Volotinen" <eero.volotinen at iki.fi> Sent: ?21/?03/?2016 17:51 To: "CentOS mailing list" <centos at centos.org> Subject: Re: [CentOS] IPSec multiple VPN setups Err. Sounds like security nightmare. 21.3.2016 7.47 ip. "Glenn Pierce" <glennpierce at

Hello, I'm following instructions in http://www.austintek.com/LVS/LVS-HOWTO/HOWTO/LVS-HOWTO.LVS-DR.html#route_on_non_ip_interface to allow my xen guest real hosts to serve virtual IP's behind LVS without having to allocate real public IP addresses for each such xen guest. I have eth1 connected via a "back-end" switch to the eth1/xenbr1 of the xen host and the other physical

Hello all, We have a somewhat unique setup whereby our default router is outside of the local network. Let us say our network is 192.168.10.0/255.255.255.0 So we have a route-eth0 file that looks something like this: 10.1.1.1 via 192.168.10.1 dev eth0 default 10.1.1.1 dev eth0 The last definition would simply not take - but it has to for the setup to work. And no, 192.168.10.1 does not