Re: Address already in use error

From: Cameron Kerr (cameron.kerr_at_paradise.net.nz)
Date: 06/11/04 

Date: 11 Jun 2004 20:07:57 +1200

Mark Voss <voss001@yahoo.com.not4spam> wrote:

> FYI, the system now has address 192.168.0.9 because we changed it at
> one point in pursuing this issue.

> /usr/sbin/arping -c 2 -w 3 -D -I eth0 192.168.0.9
> Unicast reply from 192.168.0.9 [00:E0:B6:03:35:5F] 0.864ms

> /sbin/ifconfig -a
> eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:D0:C9:13:21:23
> inet addr:192.168.0.9 Bcast:192.168.0.255

> So, it appears that in arping eth0 is thought to have HW address of
> 00:E0:B6:03:35:5F

No, it means it arping received a reply from ...:5F saying it accepts
frames for 192.168.0.9, when it shouldn't be.

> To further confuse the issue, my gateway at 192.168.0.1 appears to
> have HW address 00:E0:B6:03:35:5F:

It does indeed appear that the router is answering for your IP address.
What kind of router are you operating?

I wonder, do you have Proxy-ARP turned on for some reason?

What is the output of `route -n' on your client and gateway system?

If you run arping on other clients on the same subnet, do you get
the same result of the gateway answering?

Come to think of it, its possible that you're missing a default route,
and is therefore perhaps falling back on proxy arp for some reason. 

-- 
Cameron Kerr
cameron.kerr@paradise.net.nz : http://nzgeeks.org/cameron/
Empowered by Perl!

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Holub on getters/setters again
    ... There is, as far as I can see, no reason to have the ArrayList at ... >>before the client that uses it was written. ... And I knew I wanted to call foreach on it from the very beginning, ... whether the element already exists in that container. ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: Holub on getters/setters again
    ... >before the client that uses it was written. ... When the servers implementation is running the show, ... And I knew I wanted to call foreach on it from the very beginning, ... The reason that I didn't implement foreach was that it is slightly tricky, ...
    (comp.object)
  • Re: VPN Routing Problem
    ... "route print" showed the absence of any path for 172.16.200.0 traffic, which of course is why it was getting routed through the default gateway. ... Of course, when the VPN Server decides to allocate a different IP address to the client, I wonder if the route will once more fail? ... I can't put IP reservations onto the DCHP server associated with the VPN service, so can only influence the range of IP addresses given. ...
    (alt.os.windows-xp)
  • Re: VPN routing - single NIC - SOLVED
    ... What should happen is that the server ... acts as a proxy for the remote client. ... idea is to put the remotes in their own IP subnet and route this subnet ... Nothing is configured in RAS Admin - No policy and no Static Route. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.networking)
  • Re: Silly question of the day #2: Hosted e-mail vs. Exchange on SBS2003
    ... My second reason depends on the hosting company. ... When I last had hosted e-mail, the hosting company had an aggressive and undocumented spam control plan that caused me a lot of problems. ... why would it be a better idea to leave the e-mail with the current hosting company vs. moving to Exchange 2003 SP2 when we are moving a client to SBS2003? ... They are using various Clients (he does not know what they use...he *thinks* they use the web mail "client" provided by the Hosting Company) to access e-mail remotely. ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.sbs)