gtmtnbiker98

Question? Is there an underlying requirement to use two NICs? Wouldn't it be easier to simply use one NIC and assign IP aliases to the single NIC - assuming ETH0?

This would make your routing scheme a lot easier and having the second NIC would only complicate matters. Just an observation.

Roxoff

And if you're behind a physical firewall, you only need to secure down the web port - nobody outside the LAN can talk to this machine on any other port anyway. At home I have a samba server on my web server machine - I keep the firewall turned off on that box, 'cos I dont need it, it's behind my real firewall, and you can only get through on port 80 and port 25 (www and mail), and a local firewall or routing plan wouldn't prevent someone using an exploit against apache or sendmail anyway.

__________________
Linux user #126863 - see http://counter.li.org/

timjowers

Hi,

Did you solve this? I suspect Apache bind will work for you. See BindAddress in http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0/bind.html.

I have a similar problem with the Linux routing tables and believe the defaults chosen may be chosen simply to help dumb users run with dual NICs (multihomed). The way I interpret the routing table is all networks go to 0.0.0.0 and 0.0.0.0 goes to the lowest numbered network. Probably the "Gateway" address (Argh! why didn't they call it "router"? Is the use of "Gateway" the Bad Idea Ballmer claims Microsoft created? should be the network of the NIC rather than 0.0.0.0. But maybe the DHCP is giving bogus info.?

Does anyone have multihomed Apache? In Linux? Did you have to change the routing tables?

Thanks,
TimJowers
http://www.serviza.com/