Re: arp problem in pinging host
From: Allen McIntosh (nospam_at_mouse-potato.com)
Date: 05/16/05
- Next message: news_at_celticbear.com: "Ghosting IDS Log entries in IPCOP."
- Previous message: Horst Knobloch: "Re: HELP: NAT/Masquerading broken with 2.6.11 + pppoe (long)"
- In reply to: cranium.2003_at_gmail.com: "Re: arp problem in pinging host"
- Next in thread: alexander.steven_at_sbcglobal.net: "Re: arp problem in pinging host"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 14:24:03 -0400
[Removed comp.protocols.tcp-ip since it isn't relevant]
I guess I should have asked for ifconfig -a in the same post -
newsreader won't let me go back and look at original. Anyway
> Routing table for hostA
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
> Iface
> 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0
> eth0
> 172.16.1.0 192.168.1.1 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0
> eth0
OK but redundant, since it is covered by the default route.
> 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0
> eth0
So eth0 has an IP addr of 192.168.1.x where x != 1, and is connected by
a crossover cable to eth1 on R1. eth1 on R1 has address 192.168.1.1.
OK so far?
> Routing table for R1
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
> Iface
> 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0
> eth1
> 172.16.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
Redundant.
> 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0
> eth0
> 0.0.0.0 10.1.1.100 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0
> eth0
eth1 had address 192.168.1.1 and is connected to A.
eth0 has address 10.1.1.1 and is connected to R2. More on this later.
>
> I have also crosscable connection of R1 to another R2 with routing
> table
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use
> Iface
> 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0
> eth0
> 172.16.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 eth1
> 10.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0
> eth0
> 0.0.0.0 10.1.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0
> eth0
eth0 has address 10.1.1.100 and is connected to R1 via crossover cable?
I see several things wrong with this. First, R1 and R2 send default
traffic to each other. Second, it would be more usual to use a netmask
of 255.255.255.0 for the 10.1.1.0 network. Third, I don't understand
how the 192.168.1 entry got here or what it is supposed to be doing.
(There are two wildly different networks assigned to the same interface
with no gateway on either entry.) The 172.16.1.0 entry looks funny too.
What is the address of eth1 supposed to be?
I think you need to sit down with a piece of paper and draw your
network. For each network segment (each crossover cable is one) write
in the interface name, the addresses of each interface, the network
address, the broadcast address and the netmask. Then double check that
the routing tables and addresses (output of ifconfig -a or equivalent)
match the diagram.
- Next message: news_at_celticbear.com: "Ghosting IDS Log entries in IPCOP."
- Previous message: Horst Knobloch: "Re: HELP: NAT/Masquerading broken with 2.6.11 + pppoe (long)"
- In reply to: cranium.2003_at_gmail.com: "Re: arp problem in pinging host"
- Next in thread: alexander.steven_at_sbcglobal.net: "Re: arp problem in pinging host"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
