SEO

Mark Hobley <markhobley@hotpop.donottypethisbit.com> wrote:
>
> I now try to test the networking:
>
> ping 10.0.0.1
> 64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=250 time=0.567 ms
>
> cat /etc/resolv.conf
> nameserver 62.31.144.39
> nameserver 195.188.53.175
> nameserver 62.31.112.39

I forgot to ping the nameservers:

ping 62.31.144.39
ping: Network in unreachable

ping 195.188.53.175
ping: Network in unreachable

Hmmm, I have a different problem than what I first thought. I guess that
the packets are not being forwarded to the default gateway.

Any ideas?

Mark.

--
Mark Hobley,
393 Quinton Road West,
Quinton, BIRMINGHAM.
B32 1QE.

So anyway, it was like, 13:08 CET Jan 07 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
Mark Hobley was all like, "Dude,

[..]

> Hmmm, I have a different problem than what I first thought. I guess
> that the packets are not being forwarded to the default gateway.
>
> Any ideas?

What does 'route' say on the machine that is not working and does it
look different from the ones that are?

Also, that broadcast doesn't seem to match the netmask (the values in
your previous article), but I don't believe it has any impact on your
current problem.

--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
13:11:55 up 42 days, 21:25, 2 users, load average: 1.30, 0.91, 0.81
Linux 2.6.23.8 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

Johan Lindquist pisze:
> So anyway, it was like, 13:08 CET Jan 07 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
> Mark Hobley was all like, "Dude,
>
> [..]
>
>> Hmmm, I have a different problem than what I first thought. I guess
>> that the packets are not being forwarded to the default gateway.
>>
>> Any ideas?
>
> What does 'route' say on the machine that is not working and does it
> look different from the ones that are?
>
> Also, that broadcast doesn't seem to match the netmask (the values in
> your previous article), but I don't believe it has any impact on your
> current problem.
>

Don't you think that the problem can be in 10.0.0.1 - is there
connection up an running to internet?
I think packets are not being forwarded *by* default gateway. To default
gateway they are forwarded becouse you can ping it.

m.s.w

So anyway, it was like, 08:29 CET Jan 08 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
m.s.w was all like, "Dude,
> Johan Lindquist pisze:
>> So anyway, it was like, 13:08 CET Jan 07 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
>> Mark Hobley was all like, "Dude,

>>> Hmmm, I have a different problem than what I first thought. I
>>> guess that the packets are not being forwarded to the default
>>> gateway.
>>>
>>> Any ideas?
>>
>> What does 'route' say on the machine that is not working and does
>> it look different from the ones that are?
>>
>> Also, that broadcast doesn't seem to match the netmask (the values
>> in your previous article), but I don't believe it has any impact on
>> your current problem.
>
> Don't you think that the problem can be in 10.0.0.1 - is there
> connection up an running to internet?

If the machines that reportedly work are using the same gateway,
then the problem is likely something other than the router being
disconnected from the internet.

Only the OP can tell if they are, though.

--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
08:55:44 up 43 days, 17:09, 1 user, load average: 1.37, 0.97, 1.13
Linux 2.6.23.8 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

Johan Lindquist pisze:

>> Don't you think that the problem can be in 10.0.0.1 - is there
>> connection up an running to internet?
>
> If the machines that reportedly work are using the same gateway,
> then the problem is likely something other than the router being
> disconnected from the internet.
>
> Only the OP can tell if they are, though.
>

It was just a quick suggestion. According to the informations given by
OP there is a Gentoo box 10.0.0.13. Default gateway for this box is
10.0.0.1. OP can ping 10.0.0.1 but he can not ping any external
(internet) hosts. So either there is a problem with routing on gateway
or with connection to the internet on gateway...
But I am only amateur user so I may be mistaken.

m.s.w

Johan Lindquist <spam@smilfinken.net> wrote:
> What does 'route' say on the machine that is not working and does it
> look different from the ones that are?

On the machine that is not working:

Destination Gateway Netmask Iface
10.0.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 eth0
loopback * 255.0.0.0 lo

It looks like some reason there is not gateway configured.

I don't appear to have a route tool on the other computers, which are
Debian based, but I will investigate this.

Cheers,

Mark.

--
Mark Hobley,
393 Quinton Road West,
Quinton, BIRMINGHAM.
B32 1QE.

m.s.w <m.s.w@interia.pl> wrote:
> It was just a quick suggestion. According to the informations given by
> OP there is a Gentoo box 10.0.0.13. Default gateway for this box is
> 10.0.0.1. OP can ping 10.0.0.1 but he can not ping any external
> (internet) hosts.

From a working machine on the LAN:

traceroute 62.31.144.39
1 mercury (10.0.0.1) 0.515 ms 0.550 ms 0.416 ms
2 10.69.128.1 (10.69.128.1) 7.747 ms 12.867 ms 7.504 ms
<snip}
9 ns1-gat.blueyonder.net (62.31.144.39) 16.488 ms 43.693 ms 19.418 ms

The gateway 10.0.0.1 is being used here.

I think the problem is the gateway information in the configuration file
is being ignored by the startup scripts somehow.

Mark.

--
Mark Hobley,
393 Quinton Road West,
Quinton, BIRMINGHAM.
B32 1QE.

So anyway, it was like, 11:08 CET Jan 08 2008, you know? Oh, and, yeah,
Mark Hobley was all like, "Dude,
> Johan Lindquist <spam@smilfinken.net> wrote:

>> What does 'route' say on the machine that is not working and does
>> it look different from the ones that are?
>
> On the machine that is not working:
>
> Destination Gateway Netmask Iface
> 10.0.0.0 * 255.255.255.0 eth0
> loopback * 255.0.0.0 lo
>
> It looks like some reason there is not gateway configured.

Yeah, without a default route set it's no surprise you're not getting
anywhere outside your local network.

-----8<-----
johan@tiger ~ $ route -n
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
192.168.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U 0 0 0 eth0
127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 0 lo
0.0.0.0 192.168.2.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
----->8-----

my /etc/conf.d/net:
-----8<-----
config_eth0=( "192.168.2.2 broadcast 192.168.2.31 netmask 255.255.255.224")
routes_eth0=( "default gw 192.168.2.1")
----->8-----

> I don't appear to have a route tool on the other computers, which are
> Debian based, but I will investigate this.

In case you have that, 'netstat -nr' should be equivalent to 'route -n'.

--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana. Perth ---> *
12:11:46 up 43 days, 20:25, 2 users, load average: 0.33, 0.23, 0.53
Linux 2.6.23.8 x86_64 GNU/Linux Registered Linux user #261729

On Mon, 7 Jan 2008, Mark Hobley wrote:

> I am trying to configure the network on my Gentoo machine. The
> /etc/conf.d/net file contains the following entries:
>
> config_eth0=( "10.0.0.13 netmask 255.255.255.0 brd 10.255.255.255" )
> routes_eth0=( "default via 10.0.0.1" )
> dns_servers_eth0="62.31.144.39 195.188.53.175 62.31.112.39"

See what happens if you change the broadcast address to 10.0.0.255 as it
should be.


> I now try to test the networking:
>
> ping 10.0.0.1
> 64 bytes from 10.0.0.1: icmp_seq=1 ttl=250 time=0.567 ms
>
> cat /etc/resolv.conf
> nameserver 62.31.144.39
> nameserver 195.188.53.175
> nameserver 62.31.112.39
>
> Ok, the scripts must have created that.

Thats created as you defined the DNS in your net config file.
I prefer to install a DNS on the gateway, set it to use dnscache (default
on bind/named), all internal machinese I set to use the gateway and only
on the gateway have external DNS:es in the resolve.conf.

Could be that you timeout on the external connections and therefore don't
manage to resolve the names. Also your gateway may have been to configured
to prevent more machines to get net access than the original amount of
machines on your network.


--
//Aho