On 05 Mar 2003 12:22:51 -0400 Adolfo Bello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-03-05 at 11:48, Pierre Fortin wrote: > > > Here's a concrete example to illustrate my point -- NO changes were > > made which would be visible to ifconfig output... feel free to try it > > yourself... > > > > Here, routing is direct between the hosts... > > # route -n > > 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 > > 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 > > 0 lo 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 > > 0 > > eth0 > > # traceroute bones > > traceroute to bones.pfortin.com (192.168.1.100), 30 hops max, 38 byte > > packets > > 1 www (192.168.1.100) 0.873 ms 0.315 ms 0.202 ms > > > > Here, the routing is through my gateway... sound like the original > > issue...? > > # route del -net 192.168.1.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 > > # route -n > > Kernel IP routing table > > Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref > > Use Iface > > 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 > > 0 lo 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 > > 0 > > eth0 > > > > # traceroute bones > > traceroute to bones.pfortin.com (192.168.1.100), 30 hops max, 38 byte > > packets > > 1 r41 (192.168.1.1) 0.628 ms 3.133 ms 0.212 ms <--<<<< > > 2 linux (192.168.1.100) 0.340 ms 0.603 ms 0.247 ms > > > > Working backwards without benefit of the above, can traceroute > > positively confirm the missing entry in "route"...? > > I would say that it can: one hop implies a direct connection, two or > more hops implies the connection is going through the gateway. > > However I get your point. But then again you have to manually delete the > destination subnet you belong to from the routing table. There are two > things that I asked to help this guy: the output of the traceroute > command from one box to the other (in your first example there is one > hop, then it is a direct connection). If for some reason there is more > than one hop, then either the boxes are in different subnets or you > manually delete the subnet you belong to, which I assumed that nobody > might. > But the route table might have a host route added... you're right that no-one would deliberately delete their subnet route; but adding a host route would give the same net result... I used the phrase "positively confirm" -- the answer is no in this case if a host route is added... *My* point was that routing problems per se (not firewall related) are best viewed with route than traceroute and/or ifconfig... Anyway... the original poster is not forthcoming with the info... can we assume that somewhere in the forest there was the sound of "Ooopsss... Duh!" that we didn't hear? :^)
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
