Leopold Palomo-Avellaneda wrote: > Hi Mathias, > > I got some differences. The route table seems better: > > Host Routing Table > Hash Destination HW Address Device > 00 0.0.0.0 00:00:00:00:00:00 rtlo > 01 10.0.1.1 00:1B:21:05:0C:B6 rteth0 > 01 10.0.0.1 00:1B:21:05:0C:FC rteth1 > 01 127.0.0.1 00:00:00:00:00:00 rtlo > 02 10.0.1.2 00:1B:21:05:0C:B6 rteth1 > 02 10.0.0.2 00:17:F2:26:BC:1C rteth0 > 03 10.0.0.3 00:17:F2:26:BC:1C rteth0 > 3F 10.0.1.255 FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF rteth1 > 3F 10.0.0.255 FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF rteth0 > > > no entry from 10.0.0.1 to the loopback device.
That's because of your rtroute solicit loop: You are requesting also 10.0.0.1 to be resolved over rteth0, thus the entry for rtlo gets deleted while no one answers on your IP on the cable. > > However I'm figthing to some bizarre problem. > Scenario > - one box with rtnet, one imac box and one robot controller > - rtnet 10.0.0.1; imac 10.0.0.3; robot 10.0.0.2 > - connect the cable from rtnet to imac and can ping > ping 10.0.0.1 --> 10.0.0.3 no problem > > - connect the cable from the robot to the imac and can ping > ping 10.0.0.3 --> 10.0.0.2 no problem > > - connect the cable from the robot to the rtnet and no ping > ping 10.0.0.1 --> 10.0.0.2 problem, NO ping Again, use a packet sniffer to find out what is on the wire and what is missing. Jan
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
_______________________________________________ RTnet-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rtnet-users
