RE: More help needed please

jim.marnell_at_cca-int.com
Date: 06/25/04

  • Next message: Nathaniel Hall: "File System Survey" 
    To: General Red Hat Linux discussion list <redhat-list@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 10:21:54 -0400

    Bingo Jason thanks. I can now ping through the rh box to my main network.
    Turning on ip_forward I believe was the key (thanks Ed).
    I never thought to test from the client after that change - I guess I had
    distilled the basic problem down to not being able to ping from nic to nic
    on the same box.
    I cannot fathom why it was coded that way in the networking os. Why is it
    that I can now ping from 10.10.30.1 into the 10.10.30.248 eth1 interface -
    through the rh box - and out the 204.62.134.209 eth0 interface onto my
    office network but yet I cannot ping from eth1 to eth0 - seems like a
    contradiction to me. Any takers on why that is?? I hate loose ends.
    -Jim

    Jason Staudenmayer <jasons@NJAQUARIUM.ORG>
    Sent by: redhat-list-bounces@redhat.com
    06/25/2004 09:34 AM
    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

    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
-- 
redhat-list mailing list
unsubscribe mailto:redhat-list-request@redhat.com?subject=unsubscribe
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
  • Next message: Nathaniel Hall: "File System Survey"

    Relevant Pages

    • Re: Event ID 1000 (Userenv) Error and Event ID 8021 (BROWSER) Error
      ... > destination route entry with the 192.168.0.1 GWY was higher priority, ... > the external network), and from there to the open Internet. ... > An additional item is that it appears that if any of the NICs in the ... > with destination addresses on the 192.168.1 subnet to get to the ...
      (microsoft.public.win2000.dns)
    • Re: Event ID 1000 (Userenv) Error and Event ID 8021 (BROWSER) Error
      ... > destination route entry with the 192.168.0.1 GWY was higher priority, ... > the external network), and from there to the open Internet. ... > An additional item is that it appears that if any of the NICs in the ... > with destination addresses on the 192.168.1 subnet to get to the ...
      (microsoft.public.win2000.networking)
    • Re: ping problem ...
      ... PING 192.168.1.1 56bytes of data. ... ifconfig and route output when ping fails. ... tell us a bit about your network. ... an implicit route through a local interface on the 192.168.x.y ...
      (comp.os.linux.networking)
    • RE: ip masquerading/subnets
      ... from box1, i can ping 192.168.1.5 ... from box1, i can't ping 192.168.2.5 ... if by network mangler, you mean "network manager", no, it's not enabled on ... i've tried various route cmds, but it doesn't appear to be working. ...
      (Fedora)
    • ICMP Redirect creacting invalid route
      ... I have a redhat 9 box running nagios to monitor my wide area network. ... add a new route to its cached routing table, ... nagios never knows it because it is using an invalid gateway for the ping. ...
      (alt.os.linux.redhat)