[Vserver] Multiple NICs, Multiple Networks; Revisited 2

From: Bob Predaina <custom_basses_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Sat 12 Aug 2006 - 08:14:54 BST
Message-ID: <20060812071454.57794.qmail@web52211.mail.yahoo.com>

I'm having a problem with a fresh Gentoo vServer
installation, related to network separation. I've
built my vServer with 3 NICs, each of which will be
attached to a different network. For example, here's
what I'm trying to do:

eth0 -- only available to the vServer host, used
exclusively for administrative access to the server
from a local PC via SSH.

eth1 -- only available to a VPS guest running Samba,
to provide Samba services on an isolated private LAN

eth2 -- only available to two VPS guests, one running
VSFTPD and one running Apache. This interface will be
placed in a DMZ by an external firewall.

eth0, eth1, eth2 and lo are all up and running on the
host. the host is using eth0. as a test setup i have
installed two guest servers that will be using eth1.
both were created using the --interface
eth1: parameter. The guests correctly
report that they are using eth1 at

Even though the guest server's ifconfig information
shows binding to the correct ethernet adapter and IP
address (eth1:, it appears that they
are responding to incoming traffic on
eth1:, but their outgoing traffic is
actually going out through eth0: there
is no isolation of the network interfaces.

Can anyone explain this, or how to fix the problem so
that the processes are bound to the correct NIC
interface and don't use an unauthorized NIC interface?
My ultimate goal is to bind the guest servers to the
NIC that exists in the appropriate firewall zone.

FYI, here is a thread that summarized the problem in
more detail:


I've searched this list's archives regarding this
problem, and i found two relevant threads. The first
one mentioned having found a solution that was going
to be posted to the "recipies" page, but the recipies
page shown in the hyperlink is blank. The second
thread contained a discussion about this improper
behavior and whether this default behavior should be
changed, but there was no follow-up. Its not clear to
me if this is an error or if this is how things are
supposed to work.

Any insights would be appreciated! Thanks!

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
Vserver mailing list
Received on Sat Aug 12 20:50:24 2006

[Next/Previous Months] [Main vserver Project Homepage] [Howto Subscribe/Unsubscribe] [Paul Sladen's vserver stuff]
Generated on Sat 12 Aug 2006 - 20:50:29 BST by hypermail 2.1.8