--Sig_/I.0bq/1R+5=8=Pola=1f=Za Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:59:57 -0500 (EST) Assaf wrote: AM> If you enable VLAN tagging on the management network, which is AM> configured on eth0 (Which also provides internet access from my AM> understanding) then you will connectivity as (I assume) your physical AM> switches aren't configured for VLANs. I'm assuming "will connectivity" should have been "will lose connectivity", which is what I feared. I'm glad I asked! AM> For an all-in-one, what I would suggest is the following procedure: Excellent, I'll try that. Thanks! My next question is for future planning. There is a second interface (eth1) with a separate physical network which only contains the engine, nodes and the nfs server.=20 +----------+ | internet |-----|-----------|----------| +----------+ +--------+ +-------+ +-------+ < eth0 | engine | | node1 | | node2 | +-----+ +--------+ +-------+ +-------+ < eth1 | nfs |-------|-----------|----------| +-----+ Can the mgmt network be easily moved to eth1? Then the pubX would be non-vlan on eth0, and mgmt + privY would be on eth1. If all the eth1 interfaces are connected to a dedicated/isolated switch, does that switch need to explicitly support vlans, or does it matter? Robert -- Senior Software Engineer @ Parsons --Sig_/I.0bq/1R+5=8=Pola=1f=Za Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlLhTVoACgkQ7/fVLLY1mngsuwCeJoEbSAkeyFuCEcGETMErbMoK HBUAn2KBoQo0f1FuxdC5USyUK2KaEYBP =xWbb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/I.0bq/1R+5=8=Pola=1f=Za--