[BALUG-Admin] SF-LUG/BALUG IPs, DNS, etc.

[Michael Paoli]

Jim, I see you (or someone) got both of the:
208.96.15.251
208.96.15.252
IPs on the SF-LUG domU.
I also brought the balug domU backup up, after reconfiguring its
IP to be 208.96.15.254 before bringing it back up multiuser (earlier
today I just brought the balug domU down and disabled its automatic
restart to quickly free up the 208.96.15.252 IP for SF-LUG).  I've
also reenabled the automatic restart of the balug domU - you may
want to do the same for the SF-LUG domU at some point - otherwise
if the dom0 host reboots, the SF-LUG domU won't come back up without
manual intervention (see/research /etc/xen/auto/).

I'm still playing catch-up on the BALUG DNS and other bits - but no
primary production services of BALUG's are down - so we're in tolerable
condition for the moment.

Quoting "Michael Paoli" <Michael.Paoli@cal.berkeley.edu>:

> P.S.  If you want to make the transition a hair easier,
> at least until the dust has settled, why don't you take
> *both* 208.96.15.252 *and* 208.96.15.251 for SF-LUG's domU
> for now.  You can then "surrender" the 208.96.15.251
> IP once you no longer need it for that domU.
>
> Anyway, ... just an option to consider (the Xen configuration
> might need to be a wee bit different in that case - have a peek
> at balug's Xen configuration if you want - for the balug
> domU all the IP configuration stuff is essentially within
> the domU guest - it's just bridged to dom0, if I recall
> correctly.
> /etc/xen/balug
>
>
> Quoting "Michael Paoli" <Michael.Paoli@cal.berkeley.edu>:
>
>> [DO NOT "REPLY-ALL" (unless can post to both lists)]
>>
>> Quoting jim <jim@well.com>:
>>
>>>  don't know why i didn't think of it earlier:
>>> can we just swap ip addresses? set balug to use
>>> 208.96.15.251 and sf-lug to use it's original
>>> ip address 208.96.15.252. then we can tweak the
>>> dns stuff in the sf-lug vm to be what it was on
>>> the tower rather than figure out how to adjust
>>> everything for new dns server ips?
>>
>> Ah, ... excellent point(s) ... I missed noticing the subnet reuse.
>>
>> Let's go ahead and have 208.96.15.252 be SF-LUG again (I've taken BALUG
>> off of that IP), and 208.96.15.254 be BALUG again.  That way at least
>> each LUG remains on its same IP (even if we still have different hosts
>> (virtual or otherwise) at those target IPs compared to before
>> 2009-11-11).
>>
>> So, feel free to proceed on SF-LUG, as BALUG should be out of your way
>> (208.96.15.252 IP available for use by SF-LUG again).