RE: More help needed please

From: Jason Staudenmayer (jasons_at_NJAQUARIUM.ORG)
Date: 06/25/04

  • Next message: Eucke: "Re: Router/Firewall Recommendation" 
    To: "'General Red Hat Linux discussion list'" <redhat-list@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 09:34:44 -0400

    I just tried that from my machine (similar setup) and that is the way it
    should be.
    [root@ns2 root]# ping -I eth0 207.106.229.230
    PING 207.106.229.230 (207.106.229.230) from 192.168.1.231 eth0: 56(84) bytes
    of data.
    >From 192.168.1.231 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
    >From 192.168.1.231 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
    >From 192.168.1.231 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable

    Each interface is isolated from the other for security reasons. If they
    could talk to each other
    then there would be a problem. What I think you're tring to do is verify the
    forwarding. If so the use a client machine and set it's route to the f/w
    server then ping the outside NIC.

    > -----Original Message-----
    > From: jim.marnell@cca-int.com [mailto:jim.marnell@cca-int.com]
    > Sent: Friday, June 25, 2004 7:46 AM
    > To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
    > Subject: RE: More help needed please
    >
    >
    > Very sorry that I took so long to reply - had to leave early
    > yesterday...
    > I don't know why there is no traffic on eth1 - I think that is the
    > fundamental question here. I will say that I only recently
    > activated the
    > nic to create a test network. The eth1 nic was present when I
    > installed
    > the os - I just never activated it.
    > I did remove the bad route as requested. As I said earlier I
    > added it just
    > to see if I could force eth1 to talk to eth0. I added it on the eth1
    > interface via the gui and then removed it via the gui but it
    > stayed in the
    > routing table leading me to claim that it may be a bug. The
    > only way to
    > remove it was with route del. I'm digressing - the route is
    > gone and as I
    > said earlier the firewall is empty. It's an internal machine
    > that I'm not
    > too worried about.
    >
    > [root@redfish default]# route del 0.0.0.0 gw 204.62.134.209
    > [root@redfish default]# netstat -nr
    > Kernel IP routing table
    > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS
    > Window irtt
    > Iface
    > 10.10.30.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
    > 0
    > eth1
    > 204.62.134.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
    > 0
    > eth0
    > 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0
    > 0
    > lo
    > 0.0.0.0 204.62.134.248 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0
    > 0
    > eth0
    > [root@redfish default]# iptables -L
    > Chain INPUT (policy ACCEPT)
    > target prot opt source destination
    >
    > Chain FORWARD (policy ACCEPT)
    > target prot opt source destination
    >
    > Chain OUTPUT (policy ACCEPT)
    > target prot opt source destination
    > [root@redfish default]# ping -I eth1 204.62.134.209
    > PING 204.62.134.209 (204.62.134.209) from 10.10.30.248 eth1:
    > 56(84) bytes
    > of data.
    > >From 10.10.30.248 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable
    > >From 10.10.30.248 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable
    > >From 10.10.30.248 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable
    > CFrom 10.10.30.248 icmp_seq=4 Destination Host Unreachable
    > >From 10.10.30.248 icmp_seq=5 Destination Host Unreachable
    > >From 10.10.30.248 icmp_seq=6 Destination Host Unreachable
    >
    > --- 204.62.134.209 ping statistics ---
    > 7 packets transmitted, 0 received, +6 errors, 100% loss, time 6021ms
    > , pipe 3
    > [root@redfish default]#
    >
    > As you can see I still cannot ping from eth1 to eth0.
    > Please let me know if you need more info and thanks again to
    > everyone!!
    > -Jim
    >
    >
    >
    > Jason Staudenmayer <jasons@NJAQUARIUM.ORG>
    > Sent by: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com
    > 06/24/2004 03:46 PM
    > Please respond to
    > General Red Hat Linux discussion list <redhat-list@redhat.com>
    >
    >
    > To
    > "'General Red Hat Linux discussion list'" <redhat-list@redhat.com>
    > cc
    >
    > Subject
    > RE: More help needed please
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Why isn't there any traffic on eth1? No you don't need a
    > route for the NIC
    > installed in the system.
    > Remove that bad route and post your firewall settings.
    >
    > > -----Original Message-----
    > > From: jim.marnell@cca-int.com [mailto:jim.marnell@cca-int.com]
    > > Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:18 PM
    > > To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list
    > > Subject: Re: More help needed please
    > >
    > >
    > > Thanks to all responders. Both nics are set to come up at
    > boot time.
    > > Here's more info...
    > > [root@redfish root]# netstat -nr
    > > Kernel IP routing table
    > > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS
    > > Window irtt
    > > Iface
    > > 0.0.0.0 204.62.134.209 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0
    > > 0
    > > eth0
    > > 10.10.30.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
    > > 0
    > > eth1
    > > 204.62.134.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0
    > > 0
    > > eth0
    > > 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0
    > > 0
    > > lo
    > > 0.0.0.0 204.62.134.248 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0
    > > 0
    > > eth0
    > > [root@redfish root]# ifconfig eth0
    > > eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:10:5A:11:83:C0
    > > inet addr:204.62.134.209 Bcast:204.62.134.255
    > > Mask:255.255.255.0
    > > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
    > > RX packets:5899 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
    > > TX packets:824 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
    > > collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
    > > RX bytes:590413 (576.5 Kb) TX bytes:94622 (92.4 Kb)
    > > Interrupt:10 Base address:0xe400
    > >
    > > [root@redfish root]# ifconfig eth1
    > > eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:04:75:81:5A:01
    > > inet addr:10.10.30.248 Bcast:10.10.30.255
    > > Mask:255.255.255.0
    > > UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
    > > RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
    > > TX packets:48 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
    > > collisions:0 txqueuelen:100
    > > RX bytes:0 (0.0 b) TX bytes:2880 (2.8 Kb)
    > > Interrupt:5 Base address:0xe800
    > >
    > > [root@redfish root]#
    > > That first routing entry should not be there and may be a
    > bug. In an
    > > attempt to solve this problem I added a route on the eth1
    > > interface via
    > > system settings/network. It didn't help so I removed it but
    > > it remains in
    > > my routing table.
    > > My real default route is the last entry.
    > > Do I need any routing in place for one nic to talk to the
    > other in rh
    > > land?
    > > -Jim
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > Ed Wilts <ewilts@ewilts.org>
    > > Sent by: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com
    > > 06/24/2004 02:57 PM
    > > Please respond to
    > > General Red Hat Linux discussion list <redhat-list@redhat.com>
    > >
    > >
    > > To
    > > General Red Hat Linux discussion list <redhat-list@redhat.com>
    > > cc
    > >
    > > Subject
    > > Re: More help needed please
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > On Thu, Jun 24, 2004 at 02:37:39PM -0400,
    > > jim.marnell@cca-int.com wrote:
    > > > Anyone else care to take a stab at why my rh 8 box with 2
    > > nics cannot
    > > talk
    > > > to each other. I'll try anything.
    > > > eth0 can ping itself
    > > > eth1 can ping itself
    > > > eth0 can ping eth1
    > > > eth1 CANNOT ping eth0
    > > >
    > > > ip_forward has been set to 1
    > >
    > > Do you have routes to get from where you are to where you
    > want to go?
    > >
    > > # netstat -rn
    > >
    > > --
    > > Ed Wilts, RHCE
    > > Mounds View, MN, USA
    > > mailto:ewilts@ewilts.org
    > > Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > redhat-list mailing list
    > > unsubscribe
    > mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
    > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > --
    > > redhat-list mailing list
    > > unsubscribe
    > mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
    > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
    > >
    >
    >
    > --
    > redhat-list mailing list
    > unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
    > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
    >
    > --
    > redhat-list mailing list
    > unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
    > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
    > 

    -- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
  • Next message: Eucke: "Re: Router/Firewall Recommendation"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: MultiHomed Workstation - Which NIC is being used?
      ... Regardless of which interface received ... the same routing rules apply for return traffic. ... >> the subnet mask. ... >> load balancing of multiple NICs and default gateways. ...
      (microsoft.public.win2000.networking)
    • Re: DECWindows SET/DISPLAY & CREATE/TERM/DETACH problem on Alphaserver DS10L
      ... So we have a default route. ... Maybe what is happening is that because of the way routing is setup the ... DHCP client failed to configure interface WE1 ... INTERnet ACP Created INTERnet interface: ...
      (comp.os.vms)
    • Re: tun0 not responding to ping
      ... IP as the address of its public interface (192.168.0.2 in this ... This causes FreeBSD to have routing problems, ... default route. ... vpnc does seem to be establishing the VPN ...
      (freebsd-net)
    • Re: Generate traffic with only one machine - whats wrong with this routing?
      ... external interface even if the IP address is assigned to interface ... ip route del local 10.0.1.11 table local ... seems like an sytax error in the routing tables. ... the packets are sent out on the other interface eth2 as the "From ...
      (comp.os.linux.networking)
    • RE: 2 NICs on same network, possible?
      ... portion is the network address and .6 the host. ... In the absence of fancy, load balancing software, let's look at how routing ... # ip route show ... THIS is what leads to the 'rule' that you can't have two NICs with the same ...
      (Security-Basics)