[Linux-Anyway] Re: One thing before bed....

  • From: horrorvacui@xxxxxxx
  • To: Linux-Anyway@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 10:36:36 +0100

On Thu, 13 Mar 2003 00:48:28 -0800 (PST)
Meph Istopheles <Meph@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 
>   Hey,
> 
>   Still looking at what I'd done to fuck up my ten minutes of a 
> private network.  Can't find what's wrong.  Each 'puter pings all 
> the 1.0.0.x's, ~&~ the W98 box pings the public address also 
> bound to the Linux box's nic.  But W98 won't ping anything else 
> either via names or numbers.  Oh, & I've killed & restarted 
> routed as well.

This might be the fault of masquerading. You've probably set it to masq
packets from the private network, which (though it doesn't seem very
logical) might be preventing the private network from getting ICMP packets
back. Try turning off the firewall and pinging to help localise the
problem. Also, what's set up as default gateway on he winboxes?

> 
>   I find this odd:
> 
> # /sbin/ifconfig | more
> eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:C0:4F:60:E4:5F  
>           inet addr:63.249.19.72  Bcast:63.255.255.255  
>         Mask:255.0.0.0
>           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>           RX packets:2180667 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 
>         frame:0
>           TX packets:2139139 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 
>         carrier:2347
>           collisions:43293 txqueuelen:100 
>           RX bytes:1739687531 (1659.0 Mb)  TX bytes:1171798495 
>         (1117.5 Mb)
>           Interrupt:10 Base address:0xdc00 
> 
> eth0:0    Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:C0:4F:60:E4:5F  
>           inet addr:10.0.0.2  Bcast:10.255.255.255  
>         Mask:255.0.0.0
>           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>           Interrupt:10 Base address:0xdc00
> 
>   Shouldn't eth0:0 have the packet info after the RX packes 
> line as well as eth0?

Don't think so - at least this is exactly how it looked on my machine.

> 
>   Also, just to give it a shot, I'd stopped eth0:0 & assigned the 
> .2 address to eth0:1, but there's no change.

Hm, I think configuring it as eth0:1 is better, since eth0 is already
eth0:0. I could imagine that your change didn't change the kernel routing
tables, which might be the cause of some problems.


> 
>   Meph
> 


-- 
Horror Vacui

Registered Linux user #257714

Go get yourself... counted: http://counter.li.org/
- and keep following the GNU.
To unsubcribe send e-mail with the word unsubscribe in the body to:   
Linux-Anyway-Request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?body=unsubscribe

Other related posts: