2 network connections on the same network :(

[Firestarter]

I am trying to get my linux box to work using two network cards on the same network. Each has a static ip that works.

I can get both to work, but not simultaneously. One will work, and the other won't. When I unplug the working one and restart the network, the other will work fine, but when I plug in the original, it won't work. :confused:

[v^v^vlIqUiDmAtRiXv^v^v^v]

Check your IRQ's are the two NICs fighting for the same IRQ. Also are they 3COM nics because they tend to not play well with each other.

_LM

[Firestarter]

The IRQ's aren't hitting heads.

The two cards are 3Com 3C590's

I am not getting any error messages. They won't work at the same time. I Have a 3rd 3Com 3C590 connected to a hub to share the network connections with an internal network. The Internal is not having any problems at all.

[scanez]

What distro are you using? I'm a little confused, so are you trying to connect to two different dsl/cable providers with two network cards? How do you know they won't work at the same time? Can you not even connect to the internet when both are on?

SC

[Firestarter]

Distro=SuSE 7.2

I am trying to use my companies WAN connection, so I have two network cards connected to the same provider. Each card has an internet enabled IP address.

[jumpedintothefire]

Why use 2 nics? Just use ip aliasing, put both ip addresses on the same card. If you really want to use 2 nics could you post the output of /sbin/route -n?

[Firestarter]

Destination Gateway Genmask Iface
1.2.3.192 1.2.3.4 255.255.255.192 eth0
1.2.3.192 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.192 eth0
1.2.3.192 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.192 eth2
192.168.1.193 192.168.1.193 255.255.255.0 eth1
192.168.1.193 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 eth1
0.0.0.0 1.2.3.193 0.0.0.0 eth2
0.0.0.0 1.2.3.193 0.0.0.0 eth0

eth0 1.2.3.4
eth1 192.168.1.193
eth2 1.2.3.5

Real Gateway 1.2.3.193
Real Subnet 1.2.3.192

[jumpedintothefire]

You can't have 2 default routes (last two lines) out to the net, so you have to set up specific routes on the second card and then it will only work for traffic going to those hosts. The first nic will be use the default route through the gateway. I'm a little fuzzy about what is the purpose of the second card is for? Can I get a little more detail on what your tring to pull off?

[Firestarter]

The purpose of the 2nd card is for ethernet bonding. First I want to be able to have both Nic's functional at the same time. Then I will try the bonding.

The bonding will be done with an ISP in a remote site. I won't have the luxury of setting the box up there, so I need to configure and test it in the shop first.

[jumpedintothefire]

As in fallover redunancy, should the first nic fail the second one takes over? Sorry I haven't had the need to play around with channel bonding yet, so I have no pointers, sorry. Got some links? I'd like to learn more. E-mail me when you get it worked out, I'd like to know how to do it too, and what the got'yas are befor I try. TIA

If you mean load balancing or port aggresion I think that uses only one ip address and is handled by the nic driver, but I'm not to sure. I found this at intel's site, have a look.
http://www.intel.com/network/connectivity/resources/technologies/load_balancing.htm

[ 29 October 2001: Message edited by: jumpedintothefire ]

[thedexman]

You need to configure this in your kernel. You need to include the bonding driver. Read /usr/src/linux/drivers/net/bonding.c. Also http://www.beowulf.org/software/bonding.html. Search around on Google. I doubt many here have done this. My question to you is, why not just use a single 100baseT NIC instead of 2 old 10baseT NICs???