Problem with multiple NIC's on server

[darkod]

Could you explain the reasoning behind this a little further? Is it because of bandwidth reasons on each interface? If it is, another solution would be to use Link Aggregation to bond several interfaces into one bonded interface capable of greater bandwidth. It does require a LA capable switch, but most enterprise switches are.

There are many synonims, but the so called static bonding doesn't require a switch that supports the dynamic LACP protocol. It will simply be bunch of ports acting as one.

I agree that if this is for bandwith, bonding is the way to do it. Otherwise it makes no sense having IPs from the same subnet on two ports.
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBonding

PS EDIT: To complement my post, it would still require a switch that support static LA but even ancient switches support this, even the ones not supporting LACP.

[knutz]

Which is what I was saying - eth0 is your main route out.

OK - so what are you trying to achieve by unplugging the cables? Is this just curiosity or are you trying to achieve something with it?

No, I wasn't trying to achieve anything. It was by pure coincidence that I discovered that both addresses where unresponsive when I unplugged one cable.

[knutz]

There are many synonims, but the so called static bonding doesn't require a switch that supports the dynamic LACP protocol. It will simply be bunch of ports acting as one.

I agree that if this is for bandwith, bonding is the way to do it. Otherwise it makes no sense having IPs from the same subnet on two ports.
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/UbuntuBonding

PS EDIT: To complement my post, it would still require a switch that support static LA but even ancient switches support this, even the ones not supporting LACP.

Well to answer both spynappels' and darkod's replies:

Yes the reason is actually bandwith. So bonding seems to be the way to go.
But can you bridge TAP interfaces to a bonding interface?

[spynappels]

Well to answer both spynappels' and darkod's replies:

Yes the reason is actually bandwith. So bonding seems to be the way to go.
But can you bridge TAP interfaces to a bonding interface?

You should be able to, the bonded interface will be something like bond0 and can be used in exactly the same way as eth0 or eth1 would be.

Another advantage is that it only uses 1 IP instead of 2, less wasteful...

[knutz]

You should be able to, the bonded interface will be something like bond0 and can be used in exactly the same way as eth0 or eth1 would be.

Another advantage is that it only uses 1 IP instead of 2, less wasteful...

Okay, thank you very much all!
I'll try this first thing monday morning.
Have a great weekend.