Re: multihomed linux box IP packets sent on wrong subnet
From: jon bird (news_at_remove-this.onastick.clara.co.uk)
Date: 04/24/05
- Next message: David Efflandt: "Re: Linksys Blue box and Debian"
- Previous message: Buzzbomb: "Re: Problem setting up home ADSL <- linux -> LAN on Debian Sarge"
- In reply to: jon bird: "Re: multihomed linux box IP packets sent on wrong subnet"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2005 08:48:40 +0100
fixed it - course it's okay, i just need to sort out the subnet on
192.168.x to accept traffic from the other 'nets.
cheers.
In article <MvHbAAB$xjaCFwx+@onasticksoftware.net>, jon bird
<news@remove-this.onastick.clara.co.uk> writes
>In article <1114228279.941430.163290@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, prg
><rdgentry1@cablelynx.com> writes
>>
>>jon bird wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Got a Linux box, fairly old SuSE 6,4 job with 3 network cards all of
>>> which are internal LANS - as follows:
>>
>>Hope your Samba is a _lot_ more current than this Suse version. What
>>is it?
>>
>no, its the original version - 2.06 with kernel 2.2.19. Yes, a bit old I
>know but don't really want to start upgrading things since for the most
>part everything works.
>
>>
>>Do you mean WINS only registers 192.168.0.99? It's common for
>>multi-homed machines to only successfully register the first request.
>>Is that what you think is happening? Errors? Logs?
>>
>Ok, this is what I see on the WINS (Samba) server on the 192.168.0.x
>subnet:
>
>Apr 23 13:01:59 fridge kernel: martian source 192.168.0.200 from
>192.168.1.99, on dev eth0
>Apr 23 13:01:59 fridge kernel: ll header:
>00:10:b5:40:d7:ea:00:50:bf:d7:81:a5:08:00
>Apr 23 13:01:59 fridge kernel: martian source 192.168.0.200 from
>192.168.2.99, on dev eth0
>Apr 23 13:01:59 fridge kernel: ll header:
>00:10:b5:40:d7:ea:00:50:bf:d7:81:a5:08:00
>
>This tells me that there are packets going out on this subnet which
>shouldn't be there - hence they get ignored.
>
>>Not sure what you mean here by "out ... on the wrong subnet". The
>>registrations are to a server on the 192.168.0.0 subnet, so naturally
>>the datagrams are routed that way.
>>
>true - but they shouldn't originate from an IP address not on that
>subnet - a packet trace shows:
>
>Frame 191 (110 bytes on wire, 110 bytes captured)
>
>Internet Protocol, Src Addr: 192.168.1.99 (192.168.1.99), Dst Addr:
>192.168.0.200 (192.168.0.200)
> Version: 4
> Header length: 20 bytes
>[...]
>NetBIOS Name Service
> Transaction ID: 0x3ebd
>[...]
> Additional records
> TOASTER<20>: type NB, class inet
> Name: TOASTER<20> (Server service)
> Type: NB
> Class: inet
> Time to live: 3 days
> Data length: 6
> Flags: 0x4000 (M-node, unique)
> 0... .... .... .... = Unique name
> .10. .... .... .... = M-node
> Addr: 192.168.1.99
>
>>> what I would expect is to see the 3 packets as follows:
>>>
>>> 192.168.0.99 -> 192.168.0.200 - Multi-homed registration (registers
>>> 0.99)
>>> 192.168.0.99 -> 192.168.0.200 - Multi-homed registration (registers
>>> 1.99)
>>> 192.168.0.99 -> 192.168.0.200 - Multi-homed registration (registers
>>> 2.99)
>>
>
>>Why? What protocol are these packets (real and presumed)? What do you
>>think "source" means here? I assumed that they are the source IP of
>>the registration request, ie., the IP that is to be mapped to NetBios
>>name. It's been several years since I've looked at SMB packets. Is
>>that what these are?
>>
>well in the context above, I would expect to see the packet originate
>from 192.168.0.99 - it's the address (in the packet data) I presume it's
>trying to register rather than using the originating IP.
>
>>> Can't believe this is a Samba problem ...
>>
>>I'm not sure what the "problem" is that you're referencing, other than
>>that some packet fields hold IP values you do not expect? Are you
>>experiencing connection/browsing problems? Errors in logs? What?
>>
>>> ... because having written some socket
>>> based software you don't ever specify your source IP address because
>>the
>>> OS does that so I'm confused as to why it does this.
>>
>>I'm not sure what sockets programming has to do with the above
>>captures. Your Linux machine must register three IPs to what NetBios
>>name? A group name? Unique name(s)?
>>
>Principally because from an application point of view I've not seen
>anything that lets you specify the originating IP address - that's a
>given. You would specify the destination IP address and let the OS worry
>about how/which interface it routes it on. Thus I can't see why this
>problem is in the Samba application, it feels more like a routing
>problem.
>
>>Multi-homed boxes often cause headaches with SMB networking. Are you
>>having any?
>>
>not really got that far yet..... Might not work anyway, wouldn't be
>surprised if it didn't considering the age of one of the machines but
>just confused as to why this is happening.
>
>>It's just not clear to me what the nature of your problem really is.
>>It could be me -- it's Friday;) Clarify?
>>
>hopefully its as clear as mud now......
>
>rgs,
>
>
>j.
-- == jon bird - software engineer == <reply to address _may_ be invalid, real mail below> == <reduce rsi, stop using the shift key> == posted as: news 'at' onastick 'dot' clara.co.uk
- Next message: David Efflandt: "Re: Linksys Blue box and Debian"
- Previous message: Buzzbomb: "Re: Problem setting up home ADSL <- linux -> LAN on Debian Sarge"
- In reply to: jon bird: "Re: multihomed linux box IP packets sent on wrong subnet"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
