Just to note it is very common to have multiple interfaces going to the same
switch especially when talking about an enterprise class one like the 6509.
I would suspect that the would connect to separate VLANs although it can
work fine on the same VLAN but that's generally bad practice.  There are
also of course teaming configurations where you have multiple interfaces
connecting to the same swtich for throughput or redundancy but thats not
what we are discussing here.

--j

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:00 PM, John Gateley <tclug at jfoo.org> wrote:

> Venkat Chandra wrote:
> > auto eth0
> > iface eth0 inet static
> >         address 10.19.175.242
> >         gateway 10.19.175.241
> >
> > auto eth1
> > iface eth1 inet static
> >         address 192.168.164.2
>  > ...
> > The network cables from these two interfaces terminate on a Cisco 6509
> > switch.
>
> This is bizarre. Why are both cables going to the same switch?
> Can you get another switch and create two "proper" sub-nets, one
> for the 10.x segment and one for the 192.x segment? Then make sure
> routing on the host is set up properly so that replies get routed
> to the right interface?
>
> > I can run tcpdump on the
> > interfaces separately and I can see ICMP Requests coming in on both the
> > interfaces but only one of the interfaces responds with an ICMP Reply.
>
> An explicit dump would be interesting, and in particular to see if an
> ICMP request comes in the 192 interface and the reply goes out the 10.x
> interface.
>
> I'm not an expert, but what you are doing here seems prone to problems
> at best, and flat out wrong at worst.
>
> j
>
> _______________________________________________
> TCLUG Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
> tclug-list at mn-linux.org
> http://mailman.mn-linux.org/mailman/listinfo/tclug-list
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.mn-linux.org/pipermail/tclug-list/attachments/20090217/08e4d603/attachment.htm