[ale] Multi-homed server networking

[jeffrey.hubbs at gmail.com (Jeff Hubbs)]

Jeff Lightner wrote:
>
> I don?t see how bonding would do what he wants. He wants to separate 
> traffic ? not combine it.
>
Right, Jeff. Bonding is a solution to a different set of problems. In 
fact, I was planning to bond two client-facing NICs (each server has 
four, two on-mobo and a dual Intel card) but at this point I feel like 
setting up the bonded pair on my backchannel, theory being that at some 
future time, my backchannel may become the office LAN or at least an 
*alternate* office LAN for people who are routinely pushing around 
hundred-MiB-or-bigger files.
>
> What we do for separate traffic (we do it for a backup LAN on GigE 
> network while primary is on 10/100) is simply assign the IPs to a 
> different <hostname>b instead of just <hostname>. The only traffic 
> that can find other hosts on the backup LAN have to look for it by 
> that secondary name with the ?b? appended.
>
> For example: hostname = winsuck then the secondary IP would only be 
> known by winsuckb. A configuration for Samba expecting shares from 
> winsuck wouldn?t see them from winsuckb even if they were there 
> because it wouldn?t be looking for anything at that name.
>
That would work except for one thing: Samba servers establish a name for 
presentation via NetBIOS distinct from their hostname and distinct from 
the name(s) that their IP addresses resolve to. It's one NetBIOS name 
per Samba instance, and I won't go so far as to run two instances of 
Samba at once.

I think what I'm looking for has a networking-config or iptables 
solution; I'm just not sure which or what.

- Jeff