On Monday 20 October 2003 19:19, Selentek 24331-03 wrote: > On 18:21 Mon 20 Oct , Jason Stubbs wrote: > > On Monday 20 October 2003 18:41, Selentek 24331-03 wrote: > > > One more detail with tcpdump: > > > sudo tcpdump -f -i eth0 icmp > > > tcpdump: listening on eth0 > > > 13:50:21.969383 5.5.5.2 > 192.168.1.12: icmp: echo request > > > 13:50:21.969436 192.168.1.12 > 5.5.5.2: icmp: echo reply > > > > What's the routing table on 5.5.5.2? If there's no static route to > > 192.168.1.0 via 192.168.1.12 and it's not the default gateway then > > 5.5.5.2 should not even send out an arp request. Is the device that is > > 5.5.5.2's default route aware of 192.168.1.12? If so, that could explain > > why 5.5.5.2 can ping 192.168.1.12 directly. > > > > Jason > > route on 5.5.5.2 > 5.5.5.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 > eth0 loopback localhost 255.0.0.0 UG 0 0 > 0 lo default 5.5.5.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 > 0 eth0 > > It's very strage for me. > (Ping) Icmp packets to the interface eth1 (192.168.1.12) flying throw eth0 > (5.5.5.98). > > Is it a normal situation and the solution is iptables ? > or it's a unnormal situation?
So 5.5.5.1 has no route to 192.168.1.12 at all? From all the info you have given I can't see why it can ping with no problems unless 5.5.5.98 is in fact advertising itself as also being 192.168.1.12. I would suggest running some sort of packet sniffing software to find out what's really going on. Jason -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
