Given an example network of for instance 3 computers: 192.168.17.64 ---- 192.168.17.65 ------- 192.168.17.67 A B C Question #1: ------------ #A uses #C as router for wvdial+internet -> works fine #B imports NFS shares from #C -> works fine also But: #B does not see, nor ping #A properly. Error is as follows: Ping........
From 192.168.17.65: icmp_seq=x Destination Host is Unreachable
But why? #A and #C DO see each other without problems It is one and the same cable! If it WERE the cable, #A and #C would also report errors. What logs or so do you need to help me? Where should I take a look? Thanks! -- *º¤.,___,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤ =Oliver@home= *º¤.,¸¸¸,.¤º*¨¨*¤ I / __|__ http://www.bmw-roadster.de/Friends/Olli/olli.html I I / / |_/ http://www.bmw-roadster.de/Friends/friends.html I I \ \__|_\ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VGAP-93 I I \___| mailto:VGAP-93-subscribe@yahoogroups.com I
Telek0ma iBBMS - moving house, but online! +49....TRSi1 <<<
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 16:21, Oliver Ob wrote:
#A and #C DO see each other without problems It is one and the same cable! If it WERE the cable, #A and #C would also report errors.
What logs or so do you need to help me?
The output of route -n on all three machines is a good place to start
Anders Johansson schrieb:
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 16:21, Oliver Ob wrote:
#A and #C DO see each other without problems It is one and the same cable! If it WERE the cable, #A and #C would also report errors.
What logs or so do you need to help me?
The output of route -n on all three machines is a good place to start
Just a sec, I will crank that up -- *º¤.,___,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤ =Oliver@home= *º¤.,¸¸¸,.¤º*¨¨*¤ I / __|__ http://www.bmw-roadster.de/Friends/Olli/olli.html I I / / |_/ http://www.bmw-roadster.de/Friends/friends.html I I \ \__|_\ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VGAP-93 I I \___| mailto:VGAP-93-subscribe@yahoogroups.com I
Telek0ma iBBMS - moving house, but online! +49....TRSi1 <<<
Oliver Ob schrieb:
Given an example network of for instance 3 computers: 192.168.17.64 ---- 192.168.17.65 ------- 192.168.17.67 A B C
Question #1: ------------ #A uses #C as router for wvdial+internet -> works fine #B imports NFS shares from #C -> works fine also
But: #B does not see, nor ping #A properly. Error is as follows: Ping........
From 192.168.17.65: icmp_seq=x Destination Host is Unreachable
But why? #A and #C DO see each other without problems It is one and the same cable! If it WERE the cable, #A and #C would also report errors.
What logs or so do you need to help me? Where should I take a look?
Thanks!
route -n on #B: 192.168.17.0 0.0.0.0. 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 and this line comes twice! This must be wrong. So what must I do? route -n on #C: (dynamic ppp0, cause its a router for Internet) 193.158.134.137 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 192.168.17.0 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 0.0.0.0 193.* 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0 -- *º¤.,___,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤ =Oliver@home= *º¤.,¸¸¸,.¤º*¨¨*¤ I / __|__ http://www.bmw-roadster.de/Friends/Olli/olli.html I I / / |_/ http://www.bmw-roadster.de/Friends/friends.html I I \ \__|_\ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VGAP-93 I I \___| mailto:VGAP-93-subscribe@yahoogroups.com I
Telek0ma iBBMS - moving house, but online! +49....TRSi1 <<<
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 16:34, Oliver Ob wrote:
route -n on #B: 192.168.17.0 0.0.0.0. 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
and this line comes twice! This must be wrong. So what must I do?
You could try route del -net 192.168.17.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 Check that the routing table really has been cleared, then add with route add -net 192.168.17.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev eth0
Anders Johansson schrieb:
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 16:34, Oliver Ob wrote:
route -n on #B: 192.168.17.0 0.0.0.0. 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
and this line comes twice! This must be wrong. So what must I do?
You could try
route del -net 192.168.17.0 netmask 255.255.255.0
Check that the routing table really has been cleared, then add with
route add -net 192.168.17.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev eth0
I did the del command, verified with route -n (empty output) and did the add command. Then started a ping from #B to #A, but the same error as posted before comes. Where is the mistake? -- *º¤.,___,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤ =Oliver@home= *º¤.,¸¸¸,.¤º*¨¨*¤ I / __|__ http://www.bmw-roadster.de/Friends/Olli/olli.html I I / / |_/ http://www.bmw-roadster.de/Friends/friends.html I I \ \__|_\ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VGAP-93 I I \___| mailto:VGAP-93-subscribe@yahoogroups.com I
Telek0ma iBBMS - moving house, but online! +49....TRSi1 <<<
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 16:49, Oliver Ob wrote:
I did the del command, verified with route -n (empty output) and did the add command. Then started a ping from #B to #A, but the same error as posted before comes.
Where is the mistake?
No idea. Maybe there's a problem with the hub or switch you're using?! Try moving the cables around to different sockets in the hub, maybe the ones you're using aren't talking to each other
Anders Johansson schrieb:
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 16:49, Oliver Ob wrote:
I did the del command, verified with route -n (empty output) and did the add command. Then started a ping from #B to #A, but the same error as posted before comes.
Where is the mistake?
No idea. Maybe there's a problem with the hub or switch you're using?! Try moving the cables around to different sockets in the hub, maybe the ones you're using aren't talking to each other
I do not use a switch. It is pure BNC cables. See, its plainly like #A ---- #B ---- #C with #B having a "T"-BNC-piece. So when #A and #C share NFS and talk to each other, why would #B not talk to #A, but to #C ?!?!?!?!? -- *º¤.,___,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤ =Oliver@home= *º¤.,¸¸¸,.¤º*¨¨*¤ I / __|__ http://www.bmw-roadster.de/Friends/Olli/olli.html I I / / |_/ http://www.bmw-roadster.de/Friends/friends.html I I \ \__|_\ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VGAP-93 I I \___| mailto:VGAP-93-subscribe@yahoogroups.com I
Telek0ma iBBMS - moving house, but online! +49....TRSi1 <<<
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 17.23, Oliver Ob wrote:
Anders Johansson schrieb:
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 16:49, Oliver Ob wrote:
I did the del command, verified with route -n (empty output) and did the add command. Then started a ping from #B to #A, but the same error as posted before comes.
Where is the mistake?
No idea. Maybe there's a problem with the hub or switch you're using?! Try moving the cables around to different sockets in the hub, maybe the ones you're using aren't talking to each other
I do not use a switch. It is pure BNC cables.
See, its plainly like #A ---- #B ---- #C with #B having a "T"-BNC-piece.
So when #A and #C share NFS and talk to each other, why would #B not talk to #A, but to #C ?!?!?!?!?
Is #A and C# side terminated? Can you ping yourself? (ie. can #A ping #A) -- /Rikard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rikard Johnels email : rjhn@linux.nu Web : http://www.rikjoh.com Mob : +46 70 464 99 39 ------------------------ Public PGP fingerprint ---------------------------- < 15 28 DF 78 67 98 B2 16 1F D3 FD C5 59 D4 B6 78 46 1C EE 56 >
Rikard Johnels schrieb:
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 17.23, Oliver Ob wrote:
Anders Johansson schrieb:
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 16:49, Oliver Ob wrote:
I did the del command, verified with route -n (empty output) and did the add command. Then started a ping from #B to #A, but the same error as posted before comes.
Where is the mistake?
No idea. Maybe there's a problem with the hub or switch you're using?! Try moving the cables around to different sockets in the hub, maybe the ones you're using aren't talking to each other
I do not use a switch. It is pure BNC cables.
See, its plainly like #A ---- #B ---- #C with #B having a "T"-BNC-piece.
So when #A and #C share NFS and talk to each other, why would #B not talk to #A, but to #C ?!?!?!?!?
Is #A and C# side terminated? Can you ping yourself? (ie. can #A ping #A)
Verified that. #a and #c are terminated. #c can ping to #b and #a and itself #a can ping to #c and itself, but not to #b #b can ping to #c and itself, but not to #a so the problem must be between #a and #b hm. thanks for your thoughts. Verified it by hand. -- *º¤.,___,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤ =Oliver@home= *º¤.,¸¸¸,.¤º*¨¨*¤ I / __|__ http://www.bmw-roadster.de/Friends/Olli/olli.html I I / / |_/ http://www.bmw-roadster.de/Friends/friends.html I I \ \__|_\ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VGAP-93 I I \___| mailto:VGAP-93-subscribe@yahoogroups.com I
Telek0ma iBBMS - moving house, but online! +49....TRSi1 <<<
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 17.31, Oliver Ob wrote:
Rikard Johnels schrieb:
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 17.23, Oliver Ob wrote:
Anders Johansson schrieb:
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 16:49, Oliver Ob wrote:
I did the del command, verified with route -n (empty output) and did the add command. Then started a ping from #B to #A, but the same error as posted before comes.
Where is the mistake?
No idea. Maybe there's a problem with the hub or switch you're using?! Try moving the cables around to different sockets in the hub, maybe the ones you're using aren't talking to each other
I do not use a switch. It is pure BNC cables.
See, its plainly like #A ---- #B ---- #C with #B having a "T"-BNC-piece.
So when #A and #C share NFS and talk to each other, why would #B not talk to #A, but to #C ?!?!?!?!?
Is #A and C# side terminated? Can you ping yourself? (ie. can #A ping #A)
Verified that.
#a and #c are terminated.
#c can ping to #b and #a and itself
#a can ping to #c and itself, but not to #b
#b can ping to #c and itself, but not to #a
so the problem must be between #a and #b
hm.
thanks for your thoughts. Verified it by hand.
What if you disconnect #C ? Terminate #B and run the test between #A and #B alone. Do you by chance have a stray IPTABLE/IPCHAIN rule laying around complicating things? -- /Rikard ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rikard Johnels email : rjhn@linux.nu Web : http://www.rikjoh.com Mob : +46 70 464 99 39 ------------------------ Public PGP fingerprint ---------------------------- < 15 28 DF 78 67 98 B2 16 1F D3 FD C5 59 D4 B6 78 46 1C EE 56 >
Rikard Johnels schrieb:
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 17.31, Oliver Ob wrote:
Rikard Johnels schrieb:
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 17.23, Oliver Ob wrote:
Anders Johansson schrieb:
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 16:49, Oliver Ob wrote:
I did the del command, verified with route -n (empty output) and did the add command. Then started a ping from #B to #A, but the same error as posted before comes.
Where is the mistake?
No idea. Maybe there's a problem with the hub or switch you're using?! Try moving the cables around to different sockets in the hub, maybe the ones you're using aren't talking to each other
I do not use a switch. It is pure BNC cables.
See, its plainly like #A ---- #B ---- #C with #B having a "T"-BNC-piece.
So when #A and #C share NFS and talk to each other, why would #B not talk to #A, but to #C ?!?!?!?!?
Is #A and C# side terminated? Can you ping yourself? (ie. can #A ping #A)
Verified that.
#a and #c are terminated.
#c can ping to #b and #a and itself
#a can ping to #c and itself, but not to #b
#b can ping to #c and itself, but not to #a
so the problem must be between #a and #b
hm.
thanks for your thoughts. Verified it by hand.
What if you disconnect #C ? Terminate #B and run the test between #A and #B alone.
THAT's it! If I disconnect #C, #A and #B do see each other, but what to do now?
Do you by chance have a stray IPTABLE/IPCHAIN rule laying around complicating things? #C is my Internet router for #A and works fine as such. Right, it uses ipchains. But I see no error on this.
Help! -- *º¤.,___,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤ =Oliver@home= *º¤.,¸¸¸,.¤º*¨¨*¤ I / __|__ http://www.bmw-roadster.de/Friends/Olli/olli.html I I / / |_/ http://www.bmw-roadster.de/Friends/friends.html I I \ \__|_\ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VGAP-93 I I \___| mailto:VGAP-93-subscribe@yahoogroups.com I
Telek0ma iBBMS - moving house, but online! +49....TRSi1 <<<
Anders Johansson schrieb:
On Wednesday 26 February 2003 16:34, Oliver Ob wrote:
route -n on #B: 192.168.17.0 0.0.0.0. 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0
and this line comes twice! This must be wrong. So what must I do?
You could try
route del -net 192.168.17.0 netmask 255.255.255.0
Check that the routing table really has been cleared, then add with
route add -net 192.168.17.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev eth0
I did the del command, verified with route -n (empty output) and did the add command. Then started a ping from #B to #A, but the same error as posted before comes. Where is the mistake? route -n on #A is Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.168.99.99 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 192.168.17.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 192.168.99.99 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0 -- *º¤.,___,.¤º*¨¨¨*¤ =Oliver@home= *º¤.,¸¸¸,.¤º*¨¨*¤ I / __|__ http://www.bmw-roadster.de/Friends/Olli/olli.html I I / / |_/ http://www.bmw-roadster.de/Friends/friends.html I I \ \__|_\ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VGAP-93 I I \___| mailto:VGAP-93-subscribe@yahoogroups.com I
Telek0ma iBBMS - moving house, but online! +49....TRSi1 <<<
participants (3)
-
Anders Johansson -
Oliver Ob -
Rikard Johnels