Andrew Langdon-Davies wrote:
Hello,
In a daisychain network such as this:
fw/router------server------workstation1------workstation2 (these are descriptions, not real hostnames), how should the addresses be set up? At the moment, all the machines are on 192.168.0.0. Is this wrong? Each machine can ping its neighbour but no farther, except for 'server', which can connect to the Internet via 'fw/router'. But 'workstation1' cannot ping 'fw/server', even after doing 'route add fw/router gw server eth0'. Using numerical addresses makes no difference. All my /etc/hosts list every machine. Daisychaining does not seem to be very much covered in the documentation I've found. I'm sure I'm making a basic mistake (apart from being too stingy to invest in hubs or switches or whatever). Therefore, a basic (and very general) question: What is the correct way to address machines in this sort of topology?
TIA,
Andrew
Comment: I would like to see the output of 'ifconfig' and 'route -n' on 'workstation1'.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# ifconfig
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:24:8C:52:EE
inet addr:192.168.0.11 Bcast:192.168.0.255 Mask:255.255.255.0
UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1
RX packets:3767699 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:2588830 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:266057 txqueuelen:100
RX bytes:3880255550 (3700.5 Mb) TX bytes:217346015 (207.2 Mb)
Interrupt:5 Base address:0x220lo Link encap:Local Loopback
inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0
UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1
RX packets:7417 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
TX packets:7417 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
collisions:0 txqueuelen:0
RX bytes:6702039 (6.3 Mb) TX bytes:6702039 (6.3 Mb)[EMAIL PROTECTED] root]# route -n
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface
192.168.0.100 192.168.0.1 255.255.255.255 UGH 0 0 0 eth0
192.168.0.0 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
0.0.0.0 192.168.0.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0
You have, at least, one other topology option without adding hardware. Though,I suspected that might be the/an answer; I'll try it when I get a moment. But I don't understand why adding the gw line to the routing table as described in my original post makes no difference.
I'll try to answer your question modified thusly:
"What is ['the correct','a way','a good way'] to address machines in this sort of topology?".
internet<?>fw/router<192.168.0.1>------<192.168.0.2>server<192.168.1.2>--- ---<192.168.1.3>workstation1<192.168.2.3>------<192.168.2.4>workstation2
Thanks for your time.
Andrew
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
