|
On Mon, Mar 15, 2004 at 01:03:06AM -0800, Dan wrote:
> >
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > I will stand corrected on this, but it is my understanding from reading
> > the code[1] that the hidden flag does not effect requests sent to eth0
> > for an interface that is attached to eth0. I would suggest putting some
> > other address on eth0 and moving the VIP to lo:0.
> >
> > [1] http://www.ssi.bg/~ja/hidden-2.4.20pre10-1.diff
> > (Yes, I know there is a much newer version of this,
> > but this is probably a lot like the code you are using)
> >
> > --
> > Horms
>
> Okay. Now back to my original question: Is it possible for me to have this
> set
> up without using an extra real (routable) ip? If I have to set the VIP on
> dummy
> or lo, then wouldn't I have to set a real, routable ip on eth0 so packets can
> get routed back to the internet?
I don't see why you would need a real routable IP address, an RFC1918
address should be fine. Its not really going to be used for anything.
> Dan
>
> P.S. If I set the VIP on dummy0, does it act the same as lo in that the
> netmask
> should be 255.255.255.255?
I am not sure, I sould suspect not. Its pretty trivial to test.
Set up 10.0.0.1 up with a netmask of 255.255.255.0. If the box
responds to 10.0.0.2 then you probably need a netmask of
255.255.255.255.
--
Horms
|
