I'm with the consensus o this. There are other ways to get failover and
load sharing solutions that avoid the problems. How about multiple DNS
entries that alternate/cycle IP responses.
Do the other machine _really_ care if the IP is the same?
G.
On Wed, 31 Jan 2007, Bond, Peter wrote:
> Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 09:49:42 -0000
> From: "Bond, Peter" <PBond@???>
> Reply-To: Hampshire LUG Discussion List <hampshire@???>
> To: Hampshire LUG Discussion List <hampshire@???>
> Subject: [Hampshire] One box, 2 NICs - but with the same MAC address
>
> The idea makes me cringe, but someone has decided that it would be a
> "good" idea (for certain values of good) to have 2 network ports on
> the same system with the same MAC & IP addresses (well, they'll never
> be on the same physical network)... I don't think this is sane,
> sensible or conforming to general networking principles; am I being
> fair to refuse it? I can see all sorts of problems, and I maintain
> that it is the responsibility of an upstream router to perform any NAT
> that is required (along with the redundancy switching).
>
> And if I'm being more-than-usually unreasonable, is there a way of
> achieving it without rewriting chunks of the stack?
>
> Peter
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> This email, its content and any attachments is PRIVATE AND
> CONFIDENTIAL to TANDBERG Television.
> If received in error please notify the sender and destroy the original
> message and attachments.
>
> www.tandbergtv.com
> **********************************************************************
>
> --
> Please post to: Hampshire@???
> Web Interface: https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
> LUG URL: http://www.hantslug.org.uk
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
--
Gordon Scott http://www.gscott.co.uk
Linux ... Because I like to *get* there today.
