Re: Strange entry in my routing table.
On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 23:18:08 +, Juan R. de Silva wrote: Here is my routing table: 0.0.0.0 192.168.25.68 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 192.168.24.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 1 0 0 eth0 The first entry IS my default gateway as I expected. The second line, however, is something I cannot neither recognize nor explain. It obviously belongs to something on a different LAN segment, which I do not have. I mean I do not have any subnets on my LAN. I tried to ping 192.168.24.0 with no response. Trying 'ping -b 192.168.24.255' gives me only my own LAN IP address with Destination Host Unreachable. The wireless on my router is disabled from GUI interface. The router is flashed with dd-wrt. Should I assume my router has been hacked and re- flash it? Can somebody help me to understand this, please? Thanks for all replied. You were very helpful. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mdanff$4pv$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Strange entry in my routing table.
Quoting Gene Heskett (ghesk...@wdtv.com): On Wednesday 04 March 2015 18:34:17 Juan R. de Silva wrote: That looks 10% legit to me. 10% ? Is it a typo or a joke? :-) Thats a genuine typu, s/b 100%. 80yo fingers don't always type what my brain tells them... :( However, your response was not particularly helpful because in your case the numbers you substituted with xx are the same. I know I had to look carefully to see where the OP's confusion lay. Like most people with a home router, I don't often see a netmask that isn't 255.255.255.0. Thanks to Bob for a very clear exposition. Cheers, David. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20150305023916.ga22...@alum.home
Re: Strange entry in my routing table.
That looks 10% legit to me. 10% ? Is it a typo or a joke? :-) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/md84pp$t22$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Strange entry in my routing table.
On Wednesday 04 March 2015 18:18:08 Juan R. de Silva wrote: Here is my routing table: 0.0.0.0 192.168.25.68 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 192.168.24.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 1 0 0 eth0 The first entry IS my default gateway as I expected. The second line, however, is something I cannot neither recognize nor explain. It obviously belongs to something on a different LAN segment, which I do not have. I mean I do not have any subnets on my LAN. I tried to ping 192.168.24.0 with no response. Trying 'ping -b 192.168.24.255' gives me only my own LAN IP address with Destination Host Unreachable. The wireless on my router is disabled from GUI interface. The router is flashed with dd-wrt. Should I assume my router has been hacked and re- flash it? Can somebody help me to understand this, please? That looks 10% legit to me. Mine: gene@coyote:~$ sudo route -n [sudo] password for gene: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 0.0.0.0 192.168.xx.10.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 169.254.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 1000 00 eth0 192.168.xx.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 eth0 Cheers, Gene Heskett -- There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201503041830.07987.ghesk...@wdtv.com
Re: Strange entry in my routing table.
Juan R. de Silva wrote: Here is my routing table: 0.0.0.0 192.168.25.68 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 192.168.24.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 1 00 eth0 The first entry IS my default gateway as I expected. The second line, however, is something I cannot neither recognize nor explain. It obviously belongs to something on a different LAN segment, which I do not have. I mean I do not have any subnets on my LAN. If those are your only two entries then your IP address *must* be in the 192.168.24.0/255.255.252.0 subnet. Right? That is the route for your local subnet which is associated with your IP address. I tried to ping 192.168.24.0 with no response. Good. Because that is the network address. In the old days every host on the net would have responded to you. If you are at home then you might have no other hosts on the network. If you were in a big company or university then you might have thousands of replies coming back to your system. It would generally overwhelm both your system and the switches handling your network. Trying 'ping -b 192.168.24.255' gives me only my own LAN IP address with Destination Host Unreachable. That is not your broadcast address. You list 255.255.252.0 as the netmask for that lan segment. That makes your broadcast address on that network 192.168.27.255. If you were to ping the broadcast address then again every host on the network should respond. Not usually what you want. The wireless on my router is disabled from GUI interface. The router is flashed with dd-wrt. Should I assume my router has been hacked and re- flash it? No. You should tell us what your IP address is so that we can confirm that it is on the 192.168.24.0/255.255.252.0 network. $ ipcalc 192.168.24.0/255.255.252.0 Address: 192.168.24.0 1100.10101000.000110 00. Netmask: 255.255.252.0 = 22 ..11 00. Wildcard: 0.0.3.255..00 11. = Network: 192.168.24.0/22 1100.10101000.000110 00. HostMin: 192.168.24.1 1100.10101000.000110 00.0001 HostMax: 192.168.27.254 1100.10101000.000110 11.1110 Broadcast: 192.168.27.255 1100.10101000.000110 11. Hosts/Net: 1022 Class C, Private Internet Can somebody help me to understand this, please? When you configure an IP address on your system it always includes a netmask for the subnet. That information is used to create a routing table entry for the local subnet. It allows your system to determine whether an address is directly accessible or if the address needs to connect using a gateway. If a remote address can be routed to by your subnet then it will speak directly to it. If it isn't on a local subnet then it will route through a gateway route. If no gateway route is configured then the address is unreachable. Hope that helps. Bob P.S. I have a pet peeve about the routing table printing order on newer Linux kernels. In the old kernels and in legacy Unix systems the route table was top down. Adress matching was done top to bottom. First are the local routes and the last one listed was the default route. Routing was selected by walking the table top to bottom. If none of the local entries matched then the default route was listed at the bottom and the packet matched that and was sent to the router. Back in some Linux version that I don't recall they flipped the order printed to be the opposite way. The order you show is the new upsidedown order. In your order and the newer Linux kernels you match from bottom to top. Start at the bottom with the last entry listed and then walk through the listing from bottom to top. If nothing else hits then the last entry is the default entry on top and the packet is sent to the default route. Needing to look at it upsidedown I find very inconvenient and a break from traditional practice for no good reason. My preference now is to use this to work around the issue. ip route | tac signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Strange entry in my routing table.
Did you mean typo? :P (Yeah I understand typos from you now.) The table does not appear to have problems, you can always nmap it though, it tells what it is, in terms of operating system and open ports. (sudo apt-get install nmap) nmap -sV [IPv4 Address] On Thursday, March 5, 2015, Gene Heskett ghesk...@wdtv.com wrote: On Wednesday 04 March 2015 18:34:17 Juan R. de Silva wrote: That looks 10% legit to me. 10% ? Is it a typo or a joke? :-) Thats a genuine typu, s/b 100%. 80yo fingers don't always type what my brain tells them... :( Cheers, Gene Heskett -- There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org javascript:; with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org javascript:; Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201503042126.45588.ghesk...@wdtv.com
Strange entry in my routing table.
Here is my routing table: 0.0.0.0 192.168.25.68 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 192.168.24.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 1 00 eth0 The first entry IS my default gateway as I expected. The second line, however, is something I cannot neither recognize nor explain. It obviously belongs to something on a different LAN segment, which I do not have. I mean I do not have any subnets on my LAN. I tried to ping 192.168.24.0 with no response. Trying 'ping -b 192.168.24.255' gives me only my own LAN IP address with Destination Host Unreachable. The wireless on my router is disabled from GUI interface. The router is flashed with dd-wrt. Should I assume my router has been hacked and re- flash it? Can somebody help me to understand this, please? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/md83rg$hrb$1...@ger.gmane.org
Re: Strange entry in my routing table.
On 03/04/2015 03:18 PM, Juan R. de Silva wrote: Here is my routing table: 0.0.0.0 192.168.25.68 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 192.168.24.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.252.0 U 1 00 eth0 The first entry IS my default gateway as I expected. The second line, however, is something I cannot neither recognize nor explain. It obviously belongs to something on a different LAN segment, which I do not have. I mean I do not have any subnets on my LAN. I tried to ping 192.168.24.0 with no response. Trying 'ping -b 192.168.24.255' gives me only my own LAN IP address with Destination Host Unreachable. The wireless on my router is disabled from GUI interface. The router is flashed with dd-wrt. Should I assume my router has been hacked and re- flash it? Can somebody help me to understand this, please? Looks perfectly fine to me. 192.168.24.0 with a netmask of 255.255.252.0 (a /22 subnet) means the address range is 192.168.24.0 - 192.168.27.255. Both your PC and router are on this network. Generally, an internet-connected interface will always have two entries, one for the network itself (the second line here) and one for the gateway (the first line). -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54f79f62.3050...@mattventura.net
Re: Strange entry in my routing table.
On Wednesday 04 March 2015 21:39:16 David Wright wrote: Quoting Gene Heskett (ghesk...@wdtv.com): On Wednesday 04 March 2015 18:34:17 Juan R. de Silva wrote: That looks 10% legit to me. 10% ? Is it a typo or a joke? :-) Thats a genuine typu, s/b 100%. 80yo fingers don't always type what my brain tells them... :( However, your response was not particularly helpful because in your case the numbers you substituted with xx are the same. I know I had to look carefully to see where the OP's confusion lay. Like most people with a home router, I don't often see a netmask that isn't 255.255.255.0. Thanks to Bob for a very clear exposition. Yes David. When I get this install tuned up a bit better, I should troll thru the kernel's networking and see if I could borrow some of that math for netmask and such. Bob is likely 100% correct, but I'd like to learn how its done. Cheers, David. Cheers, Gene Heskett -- There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201503042216.29474.ghesk...@wdtv.com
Re: Strange entry in my routing table.
On Wednesday 04 March 2015 18:34:17 Juan R. de Silva wrote: That looks 10% legit to me. 10% ? Is it a typo or a joke? :-) Thats a genuine typu, s/b 100%. 80yo fingers don't always type what my brain tells them... :( Cheers, Gene Heskett -- There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order. -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Genes Web page http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/201503042126.45588.ghesk...@wdtv.com
Re: Couldn't find the DDC routing table
On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:11:57 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: Has anyone experienced this error message when using an nvidia 8400GS GPU? Nope... but Google finds some hits: http://www.google.com/search?q=couldn%27t+find+ddc+routing+tablehl=entbo=1complete=0prmd=ivnstbas=0source=lntsa=Xei=ikErTcT9Hcnx4Qa539nkAgved=0CAYQpwU What does your Xorg log say? This is a fresh Sid install in new machine, and after 2 days I'm starting to think that this might be a bad part. http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1028703/all-nvidia-g84-g86s-bad Which driver: vesa, nouveau, nvidia? Tip: Try to load any LiveCD to discard a DebianSid-centric problem. Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2011.01.10.17.34...@gmail.com
Re: Couldn't find the DDC routing table
On 01/10/2011 11:34 AM, Camaleón wrote: On Sun, 09 Jan 2011 14:11:57 -0600, Ron Johnson wrote: Has anyone experienced this error message when using an nvidia 8400GS GPU? Nope... but Google finds some hits: http://www.google.com/search?q=couldn%27t+find+ddc+routing+tablehl=entbo=1complete=0prmd=ivnstbas=0source=lntsa=Xei=ikErTcT9Hcnx4Qa539nkAgved=0CAYQpwU That's what I already Googled. Replaced the card with a new model 8400GS and all is well. What does your Xorg log say? This is a fresh Sid install in new machine, and after 2 days I'm starting to think that this might be a bad part. http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1028703/all-nvidia-g84-g86s-bad Which driver: vesa, nouveau, nvidia? nouveau, nvidia and nv all gave different errors. Some just froze. Tip: Try to load any LiveCD to discard a DebianSid-centric problem. Did that too... :) -- Seek truth from facts. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d2b78ad.7050...@cox.net
Couldn't find the DDC routing table
Hi, Has anyone experienced this error message when using an nvidia 8400GS GPU? This is a fresh Sid install in new machine, and after 2 days I'm starting to think that this might be a bad part. http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1028703/all-nvidia-g84-g86s-bad Thanks, Ron -- Seek truth from facts. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4d2a168d.3020...@cox.net
Re: routing table setup
Matías Palomec [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Does the VPN server have a static IP? Yes. If so, you can route the VPN on the eth1 and leave de 0/0 GW to ppp1 (I had something like these at home). I just tried like this, , | route add vpn_ip gw eth1 | route add default dev ppp1 ` But it looks like it won't work for me. ;( -- William -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
routing table setup
Hi all, I have got some problem setting up the routing table. Currently, the table is, ,[ netstat -nr ] | 10.1.1.10.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 0 ppp1 | 166.111.210.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.254.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 | 0.0.0.0 166.111.210.1 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 eth1 ` eth1 is in a local network, i have to first connect eth1, then i can connect ppp1. And via ppp1(a vpn network), i can go out of the local network. The problem is that within current table, the default gateway has fallen into eth1, but i can't go outside through eth1. While, if i make ppp1 be the default gateway, i can go nowhere, since ppp1 depends on eth1. How i can solve this problem? (one workaround i'm using is by adding host/network based routing enty one by one..e.g., , | sudo route add -net 209.85.139.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev ppp1 ` ) William -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: routing table setup
On 5/24/07, William Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, I have got some problem setting up the routing table. Currently, the table is, ,[ netstat -nr ] | 10.1.1.10.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 0 ppp1 | 166.111.210.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.254.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 | 0.0.0.0 166.111.210.1 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 eth1 ` eth1 is in a local network, i have to first connect eth1, then i can connect ppp1. And via ppp1(a vpn network), i can go out of the local network. The problem is that within current table, the default gateway has fallen into eth1, but i can't go outside through eth1. While, if i make ppp1 be the default gateway, i can go nowhere, since ppp1 depends on eth1. How i can solve this problem? (one workaround i'm using is by adding host/network based routing enty one by one..e.g., , | sudo route add -net 209.85.139.0 netmask 255.255.255.0 dev ppp1 ` Hello: Does the VPN server have a static IP? If so, you can route the VPN on the eth1 and leave de 0/0 GW to ppp1 (I had something like these at home). -- Atentamente, yo Matías Y sin fumar desde (casi) el '1089515700' http://www.nnss.d7.be Let one walk alone, commit no sin, with few wishes, like an elephant in the forest
Re: ppp addresses and routing table
Adam Majer wrote: Bernd Prager wrote: I'm experiencing some trouble with my DSL setup. Every time after reboot my routing table is using my ppp0 P-t-P address instead of its inet address. Which is the correct way of setting routes. Default should go though the other end of the ppp connection. $ ifconfig ppp0 ppp0 Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol inet addr:168.100.249.107 P-t-P:168.100.250.1 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1492 Metric:1 RX packets:278715 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:280248 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:3 RX bytes:155755125 (148.5 MiB) TX bytes:67529994 (64.4 MiB) $ route -e Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 168.100.250.1 * 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 0 ppp0 192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 default 168.100.250.1 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 ppp0 I'm not getting any Internet connection by using the P-t-P address. Only after I delete PPP0 and default gateway route and change them manually to the PPP0 inet address I get the desired connection. Weird because that is the *correct* way of doing things. When I change the routing addresses from 168.100.250.1 to 168.100.249.107 I get: $ route -e Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 249-107.custome * 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 0 ppp0 192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 default 249-107.custome 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 ppp0 And everything works fine from here. Except this is not the correct way... Is there something with my configuration messed up and I should get a proper connection through the P-t-P address? Or is there a way to tell my system it should use the external address instead? Are you trying to connect from this machine or some other one off on eth0 or eth1 network? - Adam I am trying to connect from this machine directly and also switched temporary iptables off to avoid any confusion there. No effects. I was trying all weekend to make *the right* approach work. No success. I am basically lost. Any way to tackle that problem systematically? Help! Thanks, -- Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ppp addresses and routing table
Bernd Prager wrote: I'm experiencing some trouble with my DSL setup. Every time after reboot my routing table is using my ppp0 P-t-P address instead of its inet address. Which is the correct way of setting routes. Default should go though the other end of the ppp connection. $ ifconfig ppp0 ppp0 Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol inet addr:168.100.249.107 P-t-P:168.100.250.1 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1492 Metric:1 RX packets:278715 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:280248 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:3 RX bytes:155755125 (148.5 MiB) TX bytes:67529994 (64.4 MiB) $ route -e Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 168.100.250.1 * 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 0 ppp0 192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 default 168.100.250.1 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 ppp0 I'm not getting any Internet connection by using the P-t-P address. Only after I delete PPP0 and default gateway route and change them manually to the PPP0 inet address I get the desired connection. Weird because that is the *correct* way of doing things. When I change the routing addresses from 168.100.250.1 to 168.100.249.107 I get: $ route -e Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 249-107.custome * 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 0 ppp0 192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 default 249-107.custome 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 ppp0 And everything works fine from here. Except this is not the correct way... Is there something with my configuration messed up and I should get a proper connection through the P-t-P address? Or is there a way to tell my system it should use the external address instead? Are you trying to connect from this machine or some other one off on eth0 or eth1 network? - Adam -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ppp addresses and routing table
I'm experiencing some trouble with my DSL setup. Every time after reboot my routing table is using my ppp0 P-t-P address instead of its inet address. $ ifconfig ppp0 ppp0 Link encap:Point-to-Point Protocol inet addr:168.100.249.107 P-t-P:168.100.250.1 Mask:255.255.255.255 UP POINTOPOINT RUNNING NOARP MULTICAST MTU:1492 Metric:1 RX packets:278715 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:280248 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:3 RX bytes:155755125 (148.5 MiB) TX bytes:67529994 (64.4 MiB) $ route -e Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 168.100.250.1 * 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 0 ppp0 192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 default 168.100.250.1 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 ppp0 I'm not getting any Internet connection by using the P-t-P address. Only after I delete PPP0 and default gateway route and change them manually to the PPP0 inet address I get the desired connection. When I change the routing addresses from 168.100.250.1 to 168.100.249.107 I get: $ route -e Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 249-107.custome * 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 0 ppp0 192.168.2.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 default 249-107.custome 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 ppp0 And everything works fine from here. Is there something with my configuration messed up and I should get a proper connection through the P-t-P address? Or is there a way to tell my system it should use the external address instead? Thanks for any help, -- Bernd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
routing table question
sorry to have recycled the subjectreal question below. Tony UcedaVélez Security Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877.884.1110 -- SecureWorks. Rock-solid Internet security. No hassles. No headcount. No capital outlay. -- http://www.secureworks.com -Original Message- From: Tony Uceda Velez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 5:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: SSH/Putty password problem where are the routing tables stored persistently in debian? Tony UcedaVélez Security Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877.884.1110 -- SecureWorks. Rock-solid Internet security. No hassles. No headcount. No capital outlay. -- http://www.secureworks.com
Re: routing table question
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:16:15 -0400, Tony Uceda Velez wrote: sorry to have recycled the subjectreal question below. Tony UcedaVélez Security Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877.884.1110 -- SecureWorks. Rock-solid Internet security. No hassles. No headcount. No capital outlay. -- http://www.secureworks.com -Original Message- From: Tony Uceda Velez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 5:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: SSH/Putty password problem where are the routing tables stored persistently in debian? You can see it with the following command: #route -n shows the actual routing table #ip route show also do the thing. Tony UcedaVélez Security Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877.884.1110 -- SecureWorks. Rock-solid Internet security. No hassles. No headcount. No capital outlay. -- http://www.secureworks.com Ing. Sergio Basurto Juárez Tel: 04455-85322945
RE: routing table question
right but is there a route.conf like there is in suse. there has to be a place where you can store routes besides in memory. doing a route add simply stores in memory and a reboot clears the routing table. Tony UcedaVélez Security Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877.884.1110 -- SecureWorks. Rock-solid Internet security. No hassles. No headcount. No capital outlay. -- http://www.secureworks.com -Original Message- From: Sergio Basurto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 5:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: routing table question On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:16:15 -0400, Tony Uceda Velez wrote: sorry to have recycled the subjectreal question below. Tony UcedaVélez Security Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877.884.1110 -- SecureWorks. Rock-solid Internet security. No hassles. No headcount. No capital outlay. -- http://www.secureworks.com -Original Message- From: Tony Uceda Velez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 5:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: SSH/Putty password problem where are the routing tables stored persistently in debian? You can see it with the following command: #route -n shows the actual routing table #ip route show also do the thing. Tony UcedaVélez Security Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877.884.1110 -- SecureWorks. Rock-solid Internet security. No hassles. No headcount. No capital outlay. -- http://www.secureworks.com Ing. Sergio Basurto Juárez Tel: 04455-85322945
RE: routing table question
On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:51:01 -0400, Tony Uceda Velez wrote: right but is there a route.conf like there is in suse. there has to be a place where you can store routes besides in memory. doing a route add simply stores in memory and a reboot clears the routing table. Tony UcedaVélez Security Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877.884.1110 -- SecureWorks. Rock-solid Internet security. No hassles. No headcount. No capital outlay. -- http://www.secureworks.com -Original Message- From: Sergio Basurto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 5:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: routing table question On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:16:15 -0400, Tony Uceda Velez wrote: sorry to have recycled the subjectreal question below. Tony UcedaVélez Security Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877.884.1110 -- SecureWorks. Rock-solid Internet security. No hassles. No headcount. No capital outlay. -- http://www.secureworks.com -Original Message- From: Tony Uceda Velez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 5:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: SSH/Putty password problem where are the routing tables stored persistently in debian? You can see it with the following command: #route -n shows the actual routing table #ip route show also do the thing. What exactly are you triying to do, if you want that your default gw apears the next time you boot your machine you must configure this at: /etc/network/interfaces or be more explicit... Tony UcedaVélez Security Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877.884.1110 -- SecureWorks. Rock-solid Internet security. No hassles. No headcount. No capital outlay. -- http://www.secureworks.com
RE: routing table question
I would add some 'up' statements to my /etc/network/interfaces, like: iface eth0 inet static address 10.x.y.z netmask 255.255.255.0 network 10.x.y.0 broadcast 10.x.y.255 up route add -net 1.2.3.4 down route del -net ... Sincerely, Jan On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 23:51, Tony Uceda Velez wrote: right but is there a route.conf like there is in suse. there has to be a place where you can store routes besides in memory. doing a route add simply stores in memory and a reboot clears the routing table. Tony UcedaVélez Security Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877.884.1110 -- SecureWorks. Rock-solid Internet security. No hassles. No headcount. No capital outlay. -- http://www.secureworks.com -Original Message- From: Sergio Basurto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 5:48 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: routing table question On Fri, 24 Sep 2004 17:16:15 -0400, Tony Uceda Velez wrote: sorry to have recycled the subjectreal question below. Tony UcedaVélez Security Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877.884.1110 -- SecureWorks. Rock-solid Internet security. No hassles. No headcount. No capital outlay. -- http://www.secureworks.com -Original Message- From: Tony Uceda Velez [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 5:15 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: SSH/Putty password problem where are the routing tables stored persistently in debian? You can see it with the following command: #route -n shows the actual routing table #ip route show also do the thing. Tony UcedaVélez Security Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877.884.1110 -- SecureWorks. Rock-solid Internet security. No hassles. No headcount. No capital outlay. -- http://www.secureworks.com Ing. Sergio Basurto Juárez Tel: 04455-85322945
removing entry in routing table
I'm trying to delete an entry from the routing table: $ /sbin/route Kernel IP routing table DestinationGateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 207.216.243.171 - 255.255.255.255 !H 0 -0 - 207.6.224.0* 255.255.224.0 U 0 00 eth0 default d207-6-224-254. 0.0.0.0UG0 00 eth0 $ sudo route del 207.216.243.171 SIOCDELRT: No such process Any ideas as to what I'm doing wrong? Thanks, Geordie. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fw: how to save changes to the routing table FIXED
A thousand thank yous!
It was tap0, I removed diald, and now it works perfectly.
Thanks again.
Kristin.
- Original Message -
From: Bill Marcum [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 06, 2004 12:08 PM
Subject: Re: how to save changes to the routing table
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:06:19PM +1000, Kristin Stock wrote:
I am a new debian user, and have just installed debian on an old PC.
I am in the process of setting up a local network, and find that when
I boot up, some spurious entries in the routing table are causing
problems. When I delete these and retain only the routing table
entries that should be there, everything is fine and I can ping to and
from the computer.
However, everytime I boot up, the routing table returns to its
previous state with the incorrect entries (they are to an interface
that doesn't, as far as I know exist, not to my installed NIC
interface).
What interface is that? If it is sl0 or tap0, try
apt-get remove diald unless you want to use diald. man diald if
you don't know what it is. If you have a dial-up internet connection,
diald controls dialing on demand. For many users, the built-in
demand-dialing of pppd is sufficient.
--
If quizzes are quizzical, what are tests? (Think about it)
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by CyberOne E-Mail Spam and
Virus Protection Service, and is believed to
be clean from viruses. CyberOne accepts no
responsibility for the content of messages
in transit through our servers.
--
Suspected unsolicited commercial bulk messages
(SPAM) have been marked with {Spam?} tag in
the subject line enabling you to filter them out
by using your mail software's filtering capabilities.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
how to save changes to the routing table
I am a new debian user, and have just installed debian on an old PC. I am in the process of setting up a local network, and find that when I boot up, some spurious entries in the routing table are causing problems. When I delete these and retain only the routing table entries that should be there, everything is fine and I can ping to and from the computer. However, everytime I boot up, the routing table returns to its previous state with the incorrect entries (they are to an interface that doesn't, as far as I know exist, not to my installed NIC interface). I know that there must be a script somewhere that is creating the routing table entries on startup, but I can't find it. I have looked everywhere that I can think of (including for files listed on the web as containing this information for other distros, but the files don't seem to exist in my installation), and donea grep search, but nothing appears. I basically did a default debian install - can anyone tell me where the routing table is populated? Kristin.
Re: how to save changes to the routing table
On Sun, Sep 05, 2004 at 09:06:19PM +1000, Kristin Stock wrote: I am a new debian user, and have just installed debian on an old PC. I am in the process of setting up a local network, and find that when I boot up, some spurious entries in the routing table are causing problems. When I delete these and retain only the routing table entries that should be there, everything is fine and I can ping to and from the computer. However, everytime I boot up, the routing table returns to its previous state with the incorrect entries (they are to an interface that doesn't, as far as I know exist, not to my installed NIC interface). What interface is that? If it is sl0 or tap0, try apt-get remove diald unless you want to use diald. man diald if you don't know what it is. If you have a dial-up internet connection, diald controls dialing on demand. For many users, the built-in demand-dialing of pppd is sufficient. -- If quizzes are quizzical, what are tests? (Think about it) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Routing table drops packets via ppp0
I am having some trouble getting routing to work properly on a box with three network connections. One, eth0, is connected to a router and is the default gateway. Another, ppp0 (eth1 - ADSL) is connected to a private network on the 192.168.17.0/24 address range. The third is a standard LAN (eth2) on 192.168.2.0/24. From the debian box, I can ping other machines connected via the ADSL modem via ppp0. I can also ping machines on the internet via eth0 from this box. In addition, any machine on the Office LAN can connect to machines on the internet. However, if a machine on the office LAN tries to connect to a machine on the 192.168.17.0/24 network, the packets disappear somewhere in the debian box. I can see the packets coming in with tcpdump but then they disappear. The debian box does not try to route them at all. Note that I have switched off all firewalling and switched ip_forwarding on in the kernel. The problem is related to the ADSL - ppp0 interface. The routing rules look OK. I can ping from the debian box via ppp0 to hosts on the connected network. However, if I ping from the office LAN, the packets do get to the debian box OK, but it doesn't route them out ppp0. It just seems to drop them. There is nothing in the logs to indicate any errors. The packets just disappear. The setup looks like this: Internet | x.x.47.224/27 Router x.x.47.225 | eth0| x.x.47.226 | ## (eth1 -ppp0 ADSL) # Debian Box #--192.168.17.2--x.x.16.78--192.168.17.0/24 ## | eth2| 192.168.2.1 | | Office LAN (192.168.2.0/24) The routing table looks like: # route -n Destination Gateway GenmaskFlag Met Ref Use Iface x.x.16.78 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 x.x.243.224 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U0 0 0 eth0 192.168.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U0 0 0 eth2 192.168.17.0x.x.16.78 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0 0.0.0.0 x.x.243.225 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 Any ideas? Regards. Mark. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Routing table drops packets via ppp0
On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 03:39, Mark Devin wrote: I am having some trouble getting routing to work properly on a box with three network connections. One, eth0, is connected to a router and is the default gateway. Another, ppp0 (eth1 - ADSL) is connected to a private network on the 192.168.17.0/24 address range. The third is a standard LAN (eth2) on 192.168.2.0/24. From the debian box, I can ping other machines connected via the ADSL modem via ppp0. I can also ping machines on the internet via eth0 from this box. In addition, any machine on the Office LAN can connect to machines on the internet. However, if a machine on the office LAN tries to connect to a machine on the 192.168.17.0/24 network, the packets disappear somewhere in the debian box. I can see the packets coming in with tcpdump but then they disappear. The debian box does not try to route them at all. Note that I have switched off all firewalling and switched ip_forwarding on in the kernel. The problem is related to the ADSL - ppp0 interface. The routing rules look OK. I can ping from the debian box via ppp0 to hosts on the connected network. However, if I ping from the office LAN, the packets do get to the debian box OK, but it doesn't route them out ppp0. It just seems to drop them. There is nothing in the logs to indicate any errors. The packets just disappear. The setup looks like this: Internet | x.x.47.224/27 Router x.x.47.225 | eth0| x.x.47.226 | ## (eth1 -ppp0 ADSL) # Debian Box #--192.168.17.2--x.x.16.78--192.168.17.0/24 ## | eth2| 192.168.2.1 | | Office LAN (192.168.2.0/24) The routing table looks like: # route -n Destination Gateway GenmaskFlag Met Ref Use Iface x.x.16.78 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 x.x.243.224 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U0 0 0 eth0 192.168.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U0 0 0 eth2 192.168.17.0x.x.16.78 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0 0.0.0.0 x.x.243.225 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 Silly question: Are you running a routing daemon? -- greg, [EMAIL PROTECTED] REMEMBER ED CURRY! http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry My elbow sockets sharpen pencils when you pass by on divine fumes of industrial combustion. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Routing table drops packets via ppp0
Greg Folkert wrote: On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 03:39, Mark Devin wrote: I am having some trouble getting routing to work properly on a box with three network connections. One, eth0, is connected to a router and is the default gateway. Another, ppp0 (eth1 - ADSL) is connected to a private network on the 192.168.17.0/24 address range. The third is a standard LAN (eth2) on 192.168.2.0/24. From the debian box, I can ping other machines connected via the ADSL modem via ppp0. I can also ping machines on the internet via eth0 from this box. In addition, any machine on the Office LAN can connect to machines on the internet. However, if a machine on the office LAN tries to connect to a machine on the 192.168.17.0/24 network, the packets disappear somewhere in the debian box. I can see the packets coming in with tcpdump but then they disappear. The debian box does not try to route them at all. Note that I have switched off all firewalling and switched ip_forwarding on in the kernel. The problem is related to the ADSL - ppp0 interface. The routing rules look OK. I can ping from the debian box via ppp0 to hosts on the connected network. However, if I ping from the office LAN, the packets do get to the debian box OK, but it doesn't route them out ppp0. It just seems to drop them. There is nothing in the logs to indicate any errors. The packets just disappear. The setup looks like this: Internet | x.x.47.224/27 Router x.x.47.225 | eth0| x.x.47.226 | ## (eth1 -ppp0 ADSL) # Debian Box #--192.168.17.2--x.x.16.78--192.168.17.0/24 ## | eth2| 192.168.2.1 | | Office LAN (192.168.2.0/24) The routing table looks like: # route -n Destination Gateway GenmaskFlag Met Ref Use Iface x.x.16.78 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH 0 0 0 ppp0 x.x.243.224 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.224 U0 0 0 eth0 192.168.2.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U0 0 0 eth2 192.168.17.0x.x.16.78 255.255.255.0 UG 0 0 0 ppp0 0.0.0.0 x.x.243.225 0.0.0.0 UG 0 0 0 eth0 Silly question: Are you running a routing daemon? No. Are you talking about the ARP daemon support in the kernel? I have compiled my own kernel for this box and it doesn't have the ARP daemon support. What I can't understand is that the box will route packets correctly when they are generated on the box itself. I have ip_forwarding switched on and yet it seems to drop packets somewhere when it should be routing them. I can see packets coming in but they don't go out. Is there anyway that I can log what is happening in the routing process? Regards. Mark. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: no PCI interrupt routing Table! (PCMCIA Netzwerkkarte will nicht...)
You talk about the bios, and I think you have to search it there. Look in the bios and check if you can find something like pnp/pci configuration. Go to that sub-menu and check if the resources are controlled automatically Sie sprechen über den bios, aber ich weiß nicht, wass du ausprobiert hast. Wenn du in den bios geht, mussen Sie suchen zu etwas als pnp/pci configuration. Wenn du da bist, kontrolieren Sie bitte, ob resources controlled automatically richtig konfiguriert ist. HTH/Viele grüße, Willem-Jan Meijer, Netherlands -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Rene [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: vrijdag 28 maart 2003 15:19 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Onderwerp: no PCI interrupt routing Table! (PCMCIA Netzwerkkarte will nicht...) Hallo, ich bin stolzer besitzer eines IBM Thinkpad 760EL (P1 133Mhz, 32MB Ram, 800x600 display, 2 gb Platte) Mein Problem ist, daß ich meine PCMCIA Netzwerkkarte nicht zum laufen bekomme (Fiberline FE2000VX 10/100 Mbit) ICh habe mir die Treiber für Linux besorgt und diese kompiliert. Dann habe ich das PCMCIA-cs Package installiert (Woody mit 2.2.18er Kernel übrigens...) Beim hochfahren bekomme ich vom cardmgr die oben genannte Meldung und meiner PCMCIA Karte wird beim Einstecken kein IRQ zugeordnet. Dies hat zur Folge, daß mir das Treibermodul meldet: ... is not assigned an irq. The card won't be activated! Also ist mein hauptproblem, daß debian meiner netzwerkkarte keinen interrupt zuordnet. Ich habe nicht allzu viel Ahnung in sachen Linux und hardware. Ich befürchte es könnte am BIOS im Notebook liegen. Ich kann da zwar vieles per Software einstellen, weiß aber nciht was ich wie setzen muss... Wer super wenn mir wer helfen könnte. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Permanently establishing an entry in the routing table?
Title: Permanently establishing an entry in the routing table Folks, I'm connecting a small network for the first time. My setup is simple: | | | | Internet --- | chad | ---| luke | | (masquerading | | | | gateway) | luke uses chad as a gateway to access the Internet. I've gotten this configuration to run. There's only one problem (so far)... Luke is a machine which is only up occasionally (it's in my bedroom and the fans are noisy). Currently, whenever I boot up luke, as superuser I type route add default gw chad which allows luke to access the world on the other side of chad. But this command is only good until I shut luke down. What is the standard way to permanently add a route to luke's routing table, so I don't have to manually do it after booting? It must be obvious, but I can't seem to find this documented anywhere. Thanks! -- Bill -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Brennan Wayne, PA
Re: Permanently establishing an entry in the routing table?
William C Brennan said: What is the standard way to permanently add a route to luke's routing table, so I don't have to manually do it after booting? It must be obvious, but I can't seem to find this documented anywhere. on a debian system i would make a script and call that script from /etc/network/interfaces. this file has the options up and down which can call scripts when a particular interface is brought up and down. I also use this to call my firewall scripts. nate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Permanently establishing an entry in the routing table?
Once upon a time William C Brennan said... What is the standard way to permanently add a route to luke's routing table, so I don't have to manually do it after booting? It must be obvious, but I can't seem to find this documented anywhere. man interfaces For the static method, use the gateway option. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
changing IP routing table
I have potato running with two interfaces and the IP routing table looks like this when it boots up: Dest.Gateway Genmask Flags Met. Iface 192.168.60.0 *255.255.255.0 U 0 eth0 192.168.61.0 *255.255.255.0 U 0 eth1 default WAN 0.0.0.0 UG 0 eth1 default 192.168.60.1 0.0.0.0 UG 0 eth0 I know this is incorrect, so /sbin/route del -net 0.0.0.0 gw 192.168.60.1 dev eth0 and that allows the WAN side to act as the default. I then add a static route to the routing table to make it look like this: Dest.Gateway Genmask Flags Met. Iface 192.168.20.0 192.168.60.1 255.255.255.0 UG eth0 192.168.60.0 *255.255.255.0 U 0 eth0 192.168.61.0 *255.255.255.0 U 0 eth1 default WAN 0.0.0.0 UG 0 eth1 Here is my /etc/network/interfaces: auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.60.31 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.60.255 gateway 192.168.60.1 auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 192.168.61.50 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.61.255 gateway 192.168.61.1 My question is why does the routing table return to the incorrect routes when I reboot and how do I resolve this? TIA, Nole Realm -- ___ Download the free Opera browser at http://www.opera.com/ Powered by Outblaze -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: changing IP routing table
On Fri, 31 May 2002 05:01:48 +0800 No Realm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Here is my /etc/network/interfaces: auto eth0 iface eth0 inet static address 192.168.60.31 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.60.255 gateway 192.168.60.1 auto eth1 iface eth1 inet static address 192.168.61.50 netmask 255.255.255.0 broadcast 192.168.61.255 gateway 192.168.61.1 My question is why does the routing table return to the incorrect routes when I reboot and how do I resolve this? You have two gateways listed. I suggest removing the one under eth0. -- Jamin W. Collins -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
loopback absent in routing table
Long story short: a friend began the setup of a debian box for me (i'm a little overbusy with work and a very long commute), wasn't familiar with debian, never seemed to get it, eventually gave up in frustration. So, i'm now trying to decipher the setup of a box with stable r 6 installed. We have a home LAN behind a Linksys DNS router. The Debian box has a static routing path set up in the Linksys system. telnetd is running on the Debian box. From one of the laptops we can telnet to the Debian box's IP address. The connection happens almost immediately (a log in syslog and, depending on the telnet client, the message that connection has been made appears). Then there is a very long wait before the login message appears. Running route (which takes a small forever) and route -n (which is quick) indicates that the problem is with DNS. We are not running a DNS server on the machine (yet). We've been stepping through the (old) network administration manual at http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/network-administrator/ Looking at the output of route, we note that there is no entry for destination 127.0.0.0 nor any entry for Iface=lo. We tried the command $ route add -net 127.0.0.0 and got the error SIOCADDRT: invalid argument. We looked at the ifconfig output for the lo device and noted that there is no broadcast IP and that BROADCAST isn't running. Is this a problem we need to fix? Lots of info below, Thanks for your help in advance. Cheers, judith :: /etc/resolv.conf :: # 020518 removed BIND # nameserver 127.0.0.1 # initial config: # search grey-cat.net # Speakeasy -- from Marty # nameserver 64.81.79.2 # Speakeasy -- from Marty # nameserver 216.231.41.2 # PacBell internet services nameserver 206.13.28.12 :: /etc/hosts :: 127.0.0.1 localhost 192.168.1.30martini.grey-cat.netmartini :: 020518/ifconfig-1.out :: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:A0:CC:64:6B:97 inet addr:192.168.1.30 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:13 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:96 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 Interrupt:10 Base address:0x9000 loLink encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:3924 Metric:1 RX packets:60 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:60 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 :: 020518/route-1.out :: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface localnet* 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 eth0 default 192.168.1.250 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 :: 020518/route-n-1.out :: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 eth0 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.250 0.0.0.0 UG0 00 eth0 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: loopback absent in routing table
also sprach Judith Elaine Bush [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002.05.18.2325 +0200]: Looking at the output of route, we note that there is no entry for destination 127.0.0.0 nor any entry for Iface=lo. We tried the command $ route add -net 127.0.0.0 and got the error SIOCADDRT: invalid argument. We looked at the ifconfig output for the lo device and noted that there is no broadcast IP and that BROADCAST isn't running. Is this a problem we need to fix? no. the loopback interface implicitly defines the route, and what good does broadcast do on the localhost net? alternatively to installing a DNS server, you might want to look into adding IPaddress-name pairs into /etc/hosts to solve the resolving problems that tcp-wrappers cause when reverse DNS isn't working. -- martin; (greetings from the heart of the sun.) \ echo mailto: !#^.*|tr * mailto:; [EMAIL PROTECTED] a compliment is like a kiss through a veil. -- victor hugo pgpxN20Q6MdDT.pgp Description: PGP signature
routing table
hello: this is currently what i have Destination Gateway genmask iface 255.255.255.255 * 255.255.255.255 eth1 localnet* 255.255.255.248 eth0 192.168.1.0 * 255.255.255.0 eth1 default *adsl-xx-xxx-xx eth0 i want to add 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 lo how do i go about doing so? i have tried: route add 127.0.0.0 lo gives me 255.255.255.255 as a submask, but i need 255.0.0.0
routing table
what i want to do is add dest. gateway genmask iface localnet* 255.0.0.0 lo when irun route add 127.0.0.0 lo i get localnet * 255.255.255.255 lo i just want 255.0.0.0 how do i do that?
Re: routing table
what i want to do is add dest.gatewaygenmaskiface localnet *255.0.0.0lo use this: route add -net localnet/8 lo or something like that. -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please! -- Linux - the last service pack you'll ever need.
Re: routing table
close but localnet/8 is a unknown host - Original Message - From: Oswald Buddenhagen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Beavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: debian list debian-user@lists.debian.org Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 5:36 PM Subject: Re: routing table what i want to do is add dest.gatewaygenmaskiface localnet *255.0.0.0lo use this: route add -net localnet/8 lo or something like that. -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please! -- Linux - the last service pack you'll ever need.
Fw: routing table
- Original Message - From: Beavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 6:32 PM Subject: Re: routing table USING DEBIAN tried: ~# ifconfig lo 127.0.0.0 netmask 255.0.0.0 ~# route add 127.0.0.0 lo ~# route add 127.0.0.0 netmak 255.0.0.0 lo i just want to update my route table so i get: Destgatewaygenmaskiface 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 lo 255.255.255.255 (not what i want!) the best i can get is w/ a 255.255.255.255 submask how do i adjust the submask so i get 255.0.0.0 not 255.255.255.255? sorry about so many replies, but it should be simple - Original Message - From: George Bonser [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Beavis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, April 08, 2000 6:20 PM Subject: Re: routing table yOn Sat, 8 Apr 2000, Beavis wrote: nope! Then something in your description is not making sense. Please try to describe the problem again.
Re: PPP - almost there, but stuck on routing table :(
John Miskinis has no clue of pppconfig: I tried pon but it complained about some things that I have not yet configured (in diald?). AFAIK 'pon/poff' are in no way connected with diald. Have U installed 'pppconfig' package ? If not do it and I find it such an elegant one for ppp dial-up users. The program is such a wonderful tool and I have no words to describe this very nifty package. ragOO, VU2RGU. PGP Key 1024/1A747CB1 Fingerprint: 61 CD 0F 96 7A 94 4F F6 F0 42 1B 6D C0 A4 24 CF -- Keeping the Air-Waves FREE.Amateur Radio Keeping the W W W FREE..Debian GNU/Linux
PPP - almost there, but stuck on routing table :(
Hello, I have recently aquired a PPP-based ISP, in hopes to get linux network connectivity. I have been working with the PPP howto, and got PPP somewhat working. I am stuck at the point where a route -n only shows ONE ppp0 connection, where the howto says it should show TWO. I am able to ping the IP address of the remote machine OK. I am not able to do anything else though. No default route stuff shows up, and I'm wondering if the debian distribution sets up something that I must change. I am using a PCMCIA-based modem, connecting manually through minicom and specifying my username and password. I then quit minicom leaving the modem connected, and run pppd -d -detach /dev/ttyS2 57600. When I ran pppconfig it put the 2 DNS server numbers in OK, but according to the howto, there should be a domain ISP_DOMAIN_NAME line before them, and I don't know the name, or if it is needed. I can post more info,, but I do not know where to start. Anyone have any clues as to why the default route is not setup? Thanks, John __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: PPP - almost there, but stuck on routing table :(
It is quite a long time ago, I used a PCMCIA modem, but as far as I remember, it was quit easy to get it work: In order to make it possible, that non root user can initiate a ppp conection, add the desired user to the group 'dip' adduser username dip In the file /etc/pcmcia/serial.opts the lines # Symbolic link to dialout device LINK=/dev/modem # Options for 'setserial' SERIAL_OPTS=spd_vhi say, that the symbolic link /dev/modem is created on insertion of the card to the right /dev/ttyS? device. So you always can reffer to /dev/modem as your modem (pppconfig) regardless which /dev/ttyS? the modem is actually connected (this may change). I've added the spd_vhi option, since I have a 56k modem... Than run pppconfig. After done this successfully, you can initiate a ppp connection with pon and shut it down with poff more can be found in the man pages... Martin On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, John Miskinis wrote: Hello, I have recently aquired a PPP-based ISP, in hopes to get linux network connectivity. I have been working with the PPP howto, and got PPP somewhat working. I am stuck at the point where a route -n only shows ONE ppp0 connection, where the howto says it should show TWO. I am able to ping the IP address of the remote machine OK. I am not able to do anything else though. No default route stuff shows up, and I'm wondering if the debian distribution sets up something that I must change. I am using a PCMCIA-based modem, connecting manually through minicom and specifying my username and password. I then quit minicom leaving the modem connected, and run pppd -d -detach /dev/ttyS2 57600. When I ran pppconfig it put the 2 DNS server numbers in OK, but according to the howto, there should be a domain ISP_DOMAIN_NAME line before them, and I don't know the name, or if it is needed. I can post more info,, but I do not know where to start. Anyone have any clues as to why the default route is not setup? Thanks, John __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com -- Linux, because I'd like to *get there* today For public PGP-key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PPP - almost there, but stuck on routing table :(
Anyone have any clues as to why the default route is not setup? Either at the command line, or in one of its config files, pppd needs the defaultroute option to tell it to make the ppp link the default route. BTW, don't be happy to leave it as it is (starting ppp manually once connected) - it won't be too difficult to automate it... Good luck... -- Nick Phillips Tel: 0976 958624 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PPP - almost there, but stuck on routing table :(
Hi, I noticed that the /dev/modem worked also, but I wanted to be sure that it was using ttyS2 for now. I am also trying everything as root for now. I tried pon but it complained about some things that I have not yet configured (in diald?). I figured it would be best to get the manual connection method working first, to ensure everything is OK, before automating... John __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: PPP - almost there, but stuck on routing table :(
On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, John Miskinis wrote:
I noticed that the /dev/modem worked also, but I wanted to be
sure that it was using ttyS2 for now. I am also trying everything
as root for now. I tried pon but it complained about some things
that I have not yet configured (in diald?).
About what exactly (btw. pon is not related to diald)? This may be the
small peice missing.
I figured it would be best to get the manual connection method
working first, to ensure everything is OK, before automating...
Usualy pon is 'very' manual, just an two lined wraper script to call pppd:
#!/bin/sh
/usr/sbin/pppd call ${1:-provider}
pon/poff is in my oppinion the most easy way to make an ppp connection.
Martin
--
Linux, because I'd like to *get there* today
For public PGP-key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PPP - almost there, but stuck on routing table :(
I noticed that the /dev/modem worked also, but I wanted to be sure that it was using ttyS2 for now. Good. /dev/modem is usually a symlink to wherever your modem is, and my advice would be to delete it right away - if one program thinks it's using /dev/modem, and another thinks it's using /dev/ttyS0 (or whatever /dev/modem is linked to), they may get horribly confused. I figured it would be best to get the manual connection method working first, to ensure everything is OK, before automating... Indeed. On the subject of automating, I recommend: options common to *all* possible connections go in /etc/ppp/options options for any particular connection go in /etc/ppp/peers/connectionname symbolic link to favourite dialout connection goes in /etc/ppp/peers/provider (I use /etc/ppp/peers/isp, but I'd got into that habit before I started using Debian) pppd command line is never more complicated than pppd call connectionname use PAP authentication if possible - connections will probably happen at least slightly faster use pppd's demand dialling rather than diald Diald is potentially more flexible than pppd for the demand dialling, but it seems to me that pppd is the right place to deal with that, and that diald is (in my case at least) adding unnecessary complexity. I also don't use pon and poff - I just start pppd in demand mode from my startup scripts, and let it be. Cheers, Nick -- Nick Phillips Tel: 0976 958624 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PPP - almost there, but stuck on routing table :(
On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, Nick Phillips wrote: I noticed that the /dev/modem worked also, but I wanted to be sure that it was using ttyS2 for now. Good. /dev/modem is usually a symlink to wherever your modem is, and my advice would be to delete it right away - if one program thinks it's using /dev/modem, and another thinks it's using /dev/ttyS0 (or whatever /dev/modem is linked to), they may get horribly confused. On laptops with PCMCIA modems I would still recommend to use the symlink /dev/modem created by the script /etc/pcmcia/serial upon the insertion of the PCMCIA modem, since it is NOT garanted, that the modem will allwas be connected to the same serial port (I have had on my laptop this problem once or twice). A program relying on the information modem is always on /dev/ttyS0 (or what ever) will be realy confused, when it is sodenly not there, and to track down this bug can mean some work. Martin -- Linux, because I'd like to *get there* today For public PGP-key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: PPP - almost there, but stuck on routing table :(
Hi, That makes sense, I can see where /dev/modem is useful once things are working. I did remember seeing a note somewhere (I've been up all night reading stuff, I forget where) where they discouraged the use of /dev/modem, and /dev/mouse however! I'm still accepting recommendations for slink-compatible browsers. I just grabbed Mosaic but it is complaining about the lack of libXt.so.6. And the darn link is there (to libXt.so.6.0) on my system. This might be related to a warning I get when running ldconfig, as I have pending configurations of libwraster stuff from a failed attempt of installing dev versions of things without the required non-dev versions. (Another story, yet to be resumed). John __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Re: PPP - almost there, but stuck on routing table :(
John Miskinis writes: I tried pon but it complained about some things that I have not yet configured (in diald?). Pppconfig configures everything that 'pon' needs. Exactly what pon complain about? (pon is just a wrapper around pppd.) Diald is not involved here. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: PPP - almost there, but stuck on routing table :(
John Miskinis writes: No default route stuff shows up, and I'm wondering if the debian distribution sets up something that I must change. Did you set up an ethernet card when you installed? If you did the install will have set up a defaultroute to the ethernet. Pppd won't override an existing defaultroute. You can probably just remove that default route: most people don't need it. When I ran pppconfig it put the 2 DNS server numbers in OK, but according to the howto, there should be a domain ISP_DOMAIN_NAME line before them, and I don't know the name, or if it is needed. The HOWTO is wrong. domain ISP_DOMAIN_NAME is not needed. I am using a PCMCIA-based modem, connecting manually through minicom and specifying my username and password. I then quit minicom leaving the modem connected, and run pppd -d -detach /dev/ttyS2 57600. Why are you doing that? Why don't you just use 'pon' to start the connection and 'poff' to stop it? You ran pppconfig: pon should work fine. Using pon may also solve your defaultroute problem. -- John HaslerThis posting is in the public domain. [EMAIL PROTECTED]Do with it what you will. Dancing Horse Hill Make money from it if you can; I don't mind. Elmwood, Wisconsin Do not send email advertisements to this address.
Re: PPP - almost there, but stuck on routing table :(
Nick Phillips writes: Either at the command line, or in one of its config files, pppd needs the defaultroute option to tell it to make the ppp link the default route. Pppconfig provides it by default in the provider file. BTW, don't be happy to leave it as it is (starting ppp manually once connected) - it won't be too difficult to automate it... Not too difficult, no. Just type 'pon'. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: PPP - almost there, but stuck on routing table :(
Nick Phillips writes: Indeed. On the subject of automating, I recommend: options common to *all* possible connections go in /etc/ppp/options options for any particular connection go in /etc/ppp/peers/connectionname symbolic link to favourite dialout connection goes in /etc/ppp/peers/provider (I use /etc/ppp/peers/isp, but I'd got into that habit before I started using Debian) pppd command line is never more complicated than pppd call connectionname use PAP authentication if possible - connections will probably happen at least slightly faster Pppconfig takes care of all the above. That's what it is for. -- John Hasler [EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler) Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI
Re: PPP - almost there, but stuck on routing table :(
On Sat, 6 Nov 1999, John Miskinis wrote: That makes sense, I can see where /dev/modem is useful once things are working. I did remember seeing a note somewhere (I've been up all night reading stuff, I forget where) where they discouraged the use of /dev/modem, and /dev/mouse however! A Linux system running on a laptop has to cope with serial ports suddenly aparing and disaparing and not necesarely connectetd to the same /dev/ttyS? port. So this is for me the only way to handle this. This is a little bit different situation from a 'normal' PC (never the less I don't know the reasons, why this the use of /dev/modem and /dev/mouse is discouraged there - but this is only due to I've not read about this, yet) I'm still accepting recommendations for slink-compatible browsers. I just grabbed Mosaic but it is complaining about the lack of libXt.so.6. And the darn link is there (to libXt.so.6.0) on my system. This might be related to a warning I get when running ldconfig, as I have pending configurations of libwraster stuff from a failed attempt of installing dev versions of things without the required non-dev versions. (Another story, yet to be resumed). I've use netscape 4.7 found in ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/mirrors/ftp.netscape.com/communicator/english/4.7/unix/supported/linux20_glibc2/ dwonlad size range from 11MB (navigator standalone) to 20MB (proffessional edition). I've untard the archive, used ns-install (comming with the tar-ball) to install it in /usr/local/netscape47, made an symlink from /usr/local/netscape to this directory and final a symlink from /usr/local/bin/netscape to /usr/local/netscape/netscape ... that works fine for me. I've never tried to use the debian packages to install netscape, so I can't say anything about them. Martin -- Linux, because I'd like to *get there* today For public PGP-key: finger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Routing table question
Hi all: I'm reading TCP/IP Administration by O'Reily, and have a question on the routing table on my Debian box. It's quite simple: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 209.226.71.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 209.226.71.10.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 eth1 I have 2 nics in my computer. eth0 is connected to another computer (local net), and has IP 192.168.1.2, and another one is connected to the internet with DHCP. My question is: why is the local network bound to default gateway? Shouldn't 192.168.1.0 be bound to 192.168.1.2? I suspect that I misunderstand something, since the computers are able to comunicate. Any input highly appreciated, -- Arcady Genkin ... without money one gets nothing in this world, not even a certificate of eternal blessedness in the other world... (S. Kierkegaard)
Re: Routing table question
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 05:50:03PM -0400, Arcady Genkin wrote: Hi all: I'm reading TCP/IP Administration by O'Reily, and have a question on the routing table on my Debian box. It's quite simple: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 209.226.71.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 209.226.71.10.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 eth1 I have 2 nics in my computer. eth0 is connected to another computer (local net), and has IP 192.168.1.2, and another one is connected to the internet with DHCP. My question is: why is the local network bound to default gateway? Shouldn't 192.168.1.0 be bound to 192.168.1.2? The default is for addresses whose routes are not specified by the routing table. Packets destined for any computer with an IP in the 192.168.1.0 network will be sent out eth0. Everything else will go out the (default) eth1. I suspect that I misunderstand something, since the computers are able to comunicate. Any input highly appreciated, Hope this made some sense. -- David H. Silber -- http://www.orbits.com/~dhs/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] For custom software, see:http://www.SilberSoft.com/ Palm OS / Linux Documentation: http://www.orbits.com/Palm/
Re: Routing table question
David H. Silber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm reading TCP/IP Administration by O'Reily, and have a question on the routing table on my Debian box. It's quite simple: Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags MSS Window irtt Iface 209.226.71.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth1 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 0.0.0.0 209.226.71.10.0.0.0 UG0 0 0 eth1 I have 2 nics in my computer. eth0 is connected to another computer (local net), and has IP 192.168.1.2, and another one is connected to the internet with DHCP. My question is: why is the local network bound to default gateway? Shouldn't 192.168.1.0 be bound to 192.168.1.2? The default is for addresses whose routes are not specified by the routing table. Packets destined for any computer with an IP in the 192.168.1.0 network will be sent out eth0. Everything else will go out the (default) eth1. David, thanks for your reply. I still don't understand something. Doesn't the line: 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 mean send everything addressed to IP's 192.168.1.* through default gateway? But this way the kernel will be sending communications for 192.168.1.1 through 209.226.71.1. So I must be wrong in translating the line above... -- Arcady Genkin ... without money one gets nothing in this world, not even a certificate of eternal blessedness in the other world... (S. Kierkegaard)
Re: Routing table question
Arcady Genkin wrote: I still don't understand something. Doesn't the line: 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 ^^^ Don't let those 0s confuse you. That means there is not gateway defined for that route. Also look in the fourth column. In your default gateway route you see 'UG'. the 'G' means gateway. Above there is only 'U'. Which means the route is up. The line actually says send all packets destined for 192.168.1.x out on eth0. -- Paul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] Where do all the bits go when the computer is done with them?
Re: Routing table question
Paul Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I still don't understand something. Doesn't the line: 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 ^^^ Don't let those 0s confuse you. That means there is not gateway defined for that route. Also look in the fourth column. In your default gateway route you see 'UG'. the 'G' means gateway. Above there is only 'U'. Which means the route is up. Paul, thanks a lot for your reply. I got confused by the following phrase in the book: The default route is the other reserved network number mentioned earlier: 0.0.0.0. The line actually says send all packets destined for 192.168.1.x out on eth0. Thanks again. p.s. I apologize if I sent you this message twice. Hit the wrong shortcut. ;^[ -- Arcady Genkin ... without money one gets nothing in this world, not even a certificate of eternal blessedness in the other world... (S. Kierkegaard)
Re: Routing table question
On Wed, Jul 28, 1999 at 06:07:55PM -0400, Arcady Genkin wrote: David H. Silber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The default is for addresses whose routes are not specified by the routing table. Packets destined for any computer with an IP in the 192.168.1.0 network will be sent out eth0. Everything else will go out the (default) eth1. David, thanks for your reply. I still don't understand something. Doesn't the line: 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 mean send everything addressed to IP's 192.168.1.* through default gateway? But this way the kernel will be sending communications for 192.168.1.1 through 209.226.71.1. So I must be wrong in translating the line above... It means send everything addressed to IP's 192.168.1.* through the specified interface, in this case, eth0. -- David H. Silber -- http://www.orbits.com/~dhs/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] For custom software, see:http://www.SilberSoft.com/ Palm OS / Linux Documentation: http://www.orbits.com/Palm/
Re: Routing table question
David H. Silber [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I still don't understand something. Doesn't the line: 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 0 eth0 mean send everything addressed to IP's 192.168.1.* through default gateway? But this way the kernel will be sending communications for 192.168.1.1 through 209.226.71.1. So I must be wrong in translating the line above... It more means send everything addressed to a host on the 192.168.1.0/24 network to -no- gateway. The gateway column specifies which machine to gateway through, so should be host addresses, not network addresses. 0.0.0.0 does not mean default, but rather none. Perhaps a bigger example will make it clearer... (Abbreviated) routing table: Destination Gateway Iface 192.168.1.0/24 0.0.0.0 eth0 192.168.2.0/24 192.168.1.254(eth0) 192.168.3.0/24 192.168.1.253(eth0) 209.226.71.0/24 0.0.0.0 eth1 0.0.0.0/0209.226.71.1 (eth1) This is your setup, but I've added two more local nets that have gateways on the 192.168.1.0 network. The interfaces in parenthesis are computed by the routing algorithm, not set by route or ifconfig. If you send a packet to 192.168.1.34, the routing algorithm would see that you have a direct connection (no gateway) to 192.168.1.0/24, which is the network for your destination, so it would know to send through the eth0 interface directly to 192.168.1.34. If you send a packet to 192.168.2.34, the routing algorithm would see that 192.168.1.254 is the gateway, and it's precomputed that the gateway is on eth0, so it would send your packet for ...2.34 to ...1.254 on eth0. Similarly, a packet to ...3.34 would be sent to ...1.2553 on eth0. Presumably, the two gateways would forward it along. If you sent a packet to 208.4.23.5, the routing algorithm would see that there is no defined route to that machine, so it uses the default route, and sends it to 209.226.71.1 for forwarding. Clearer? -- Arcady Genkin ... without money one gets nothing in this world, not even a certificate of eternal blessedness in the other world... (S. Kierkegaard) -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- Buddha Buck [EMAIL PROTECTED] Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our liberty depends upon the chaos and cacaphony of the unfettered speech the First Amendment protects. -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
Re: Unwanted routing table entries
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hi Avery, The sl0 device entries are set up by the diald package, which task is to automatically dial up the line to your ISP if needed. This should be no problem with your dialin script. Try setting another IP-adress (something like 10.0.0.1/10.0.0.2) for your local/remote. If afterwards route doesn't show the route, simply add these entries with some name like isplocal and ispremote to your /etc/hosts file. The parameter dynamic has to be activated in /etc/diald/diald.options an ipcp-accept-local, ipcp-accept-remote and noipdefault in /etc/ppp/options to adjust these ip's to the ISP's IP-adresses. If you want the automatic dial in to work, there is no way in removing the default route entry, otherwise you can delete the entry defaultroute from the /etc/diald/diald.options file. Both sl0 entries are dummy entries. When these devices are adressed, diald will set up the serial line and configure it in a way, that the modem is added as a network device to the system. The default route entry is needed, because this is the one entry where all frames, for which no matching local adress could be found will be sent through. So any time you try to address some internet adress, this frame will be sent through this route and diald will be able to set up the line. If you remove the default route, you will get a unknown host ... error in this case. Hope this helps Dieter On Mon, 26 Apr 1999, Avery Fay wrote: Hi, I'm new to this list so if this is the wrong place to ask this please tell me. I recently bought the Debian CDs and managed to get everything installed. My first project was to get my modem properly connecting to my ISP. After finally getting my modem working and the scripts set up I still have a problem with PPP. After every restart, when I type route -n, I get: DestinationGatewayGenmaskFlagsMetricRet UseIface 192.168.0.20.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH1 00 sl0 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0255.0.0.0 U 0 00lo 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 U 1 00sl0 Anyway my problem is with the first and third entries. When I use pppd it gives me an error saying the default route has already been set and will not work. When I delete those entries ppp works fine. My question is, when in the init process are these entries being made and how to I get rid of them? I have looked through a lot of the files in /etc/init.d and found nothing. I see no messages about their creation when I type dmesg either. I do know that they are created during the init process because when I delete they reappear after reboot. I realize I could put commands at the end of the init process that would erase these entries but I would rather keep them from happening. I am sort of curious as to what they are as well. I gather that sl from sl0 stands for serial link (got this from ifconfig) but other than that I know nothing. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Avery Fay -- Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] /dev/null -- Dieter Jaeger Datentechnik [EMAIL PROTECTED] -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use MessageID: jhFXwa3HAAa5TFZHu+jdeLQKI3k5YQy6 iQCVAwUBN03taXUAxaESJjTJAQF6LAP/alD2k/vT5LE29Q2bKcCi9hoLVbViLl8y KVV1yoJ3PQ6UyyJDBU7rGWRfAgcVhzmYQ7r/2g9fjDcC1eTXFUcjsB4ZKnhWmppF SDQI/E8QTRO09qHk7JH4VP3dy3HFqz4n6cW9BCRFQeVuhHp3wlMi/l4S2tlMYTqO jt7VzesHRTA= =Y+wz -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: Unwanted routing table entries
Hello, Dieter Jäger: The sl0 device entries are set up by the diald package, which task is to automatically dial up the line to your ISP if needed. I guess the solution, then, is: a) if you want on-demand dialling, set up that (using diald), b) otherwise, get rid of the diald package Avery Fay: I do know that they are created during the init process because when I delete they reappear after reboot. Just by the way (and so you don't get confused later), the init process is a technical term which doesn't mean what you think it means. What you mean is called initialization, boot-up or start-up sequence. The `init' process is the program that runs as process number 1; it starts up after the kernel has finished its own initializations, and runs further initializations (from the init.d directory), makes sure there are gettys (or something) running on the six console screens at all times, and oversees the shutdown of the system. It is configured and controlled with /etc/inittab and /sbin/telinit Jiri -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] We'll know the future has arrived when every mailer transparently quotes lines that begin with From , but no-one remembers why.
Re: Unwanted routing table entries
Are you running slip? The default route is set in /etc/init.d/network The other routes will also be added from that file. Kernel 2.2.x automatically adds a route for each interface when it is activated. I use diald which creates a slip device to act as a proxy for the ppp connection. When traffic is detected on the slip interface (sl0 on my machine) diald starts dialing the modem and on connect starts ppp. My routing table looks similar to the one you posted when I'm not connected to my isp. Pat --- Signature removed because some people are way too thin skinned
Unwanted routing table entries
Hi, I'm new to this list so if this is the wrong place to ask this please tell me. I recently bought the Debian CDs and managed to get everything installed. My first project was to get my modem properly connecting to my ISP. After finally getting my modem working and the scripts set up I still have a problem with PPP. After every restart, when I type route -n, I get: DestinationGatewayGenmaskFlagsMetricRet UseIface 192.168.0.20.0.0.0 255.255.255.255 UH1 00 sl0 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0255.0.0.0 U 0 00lo 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 U 1 00sl0 Anyway my problem is with the first and third entries. When I use pppd it gives me an error saying the default route has already been set and will not work. When I delete those entries ppp works fine. My question is, when in the init process are these entries being made and how to I get rid of them? I have looked through a lot of the files in /etc/init.d and found nothing. I see no messages about their creation when I type dmesg either. I do know that they are created during the init process because when I delete they reappear after reboot. I realize I could put commands at the end of the init process that would erase these entries but I would rather keep them from happening. I am sort of curious as to what they are as well. I gather that sl from sl0 stands for serial link (got this from ifconfig) but other than that I know nothing. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Avery Fay
Re: PPP link kills routing table
Jul 1 20:38:45 destiny pppd[560]: IPCP: timeout sending Config-Requests What about what the chat script says ? Are you positive the other sides ppp protocol is kicking when you connect ? I don't use a chat script. I use minicom to connect to my ISP. Then manually start ppp from that end (that's how I know the other side's ppp protocol is kicking in). I then exit minicom (C-a q) and run pppd -d -detach /dev/cua1 on my machine. Mark Phillips. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PPP link kills routing table
What exactly happens when you try to run pppd? Any messages in /var/adm/messages or /var/adm/debug? Yes, and even more instructive were messages from /var/adm/daemon.log Eg: Jul 1 20:38:15 destiny pppd[560]: pppd 2.2.0 started by root, uid 0 Jul 1 20:38:15 destiny pppd[560]: Using interface ppp0 Jul 1 20:38:15 destiny pppd[560]: Connect: ppp0 -- /dev/cua1 Jul 1 20:38:15 destiny pppd[560]: sent [LCP ConfReq id=0x1 mru 1006 asyncmap 0x0 magic 0x52f38034 pcomp accomp] Jul 1 20:38:15 destiny pppd[560]: rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0x7 asyncmap 0x0 magic 0x9710b401 pcomp accomp] Jul 1 20:38:15 destiny pppd[560]: sent [LCP ConfAck id=0x7 asyncmap 0x0 magic 0x9710b401 pcomp accomp] Jul 1 20:38:15 destiny pppd[560]: rcvd [LCP ConfReq id=0x8 asyncmap 0x0 magic 0x9710b401 pcomp accomp] Jul 1 20:38:15 destiny pppd[560]: sent [LCP ConfAck id=0x8 asyncmap 0x0 magic 0x9710b401 pcomp accomp] Jul 1 20:38:15 destiny pppd[560]: rcvd [LCP ConfAck id=0x1 mru 1006 asyncmap 0x0 magic 0x52f38034 pcomp accomp] Jul 1 20:38:15 destiny pppd[560]: sent [IPCP ConfReq id=0x1 addr 192.1.1.1 compress VJ 0f 01] Jul 1 20:38:42 destiny last message repeated 9 times Jul 1 20:38:45 destiny pppd[560]: IPCP: timeout sending Config-Requests Remove the eth0 entries by using ifconfig and try to run pppd. It could be as simple as an interrupt conflict between your ethernet card and the serial port pppd is using. There are still problems with eth0 removed. Besides my ethernet card uses interrupt 5 whereas my modem uses interrupt 3. No one seems to be able to help me with my PPP problems. Though I am thankful to those who have tried. Mark Phillips. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: PPP link kills routing table
On Tue, 18 Jun 1996, Mark Phillips wrote: Hi, Thank's to all the people who have helped me recently. Every time I solve one problem, another appears. I tried establishing a ppp link and found it didn't work. To find out what was going on, I ran route and got: What exactly happens when you try to run pppd? Any messages in /var/adm/messages or /var/adm/debug? [...] I tried several things to try and get it to work. Previously ppp had worked when I had nothing in my /etc/modules file, so I tried commenting out the entries and rebooted. PPP now works (as you can see by the fact that I am typing this), however I think ppp working is the result of a side effect: namely, that as a result my local ethernet network wasn't setup. If I now type route, before running pppd, I get: Remove the eth0 entries by using ifconfig and try to run pppd. It could be as simple as an interrupt conflict between your ethernet card and the serial port pppd is using. I had that problem a while ago. My ethernet and my ppp link was mutually exclusive. /Bengt-Ove Johansson!
Re: PPP link kills routing table
On Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:52:53 +1000, Mark Phillips
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mark I tried establishing a ppp link and found it didn't work. To
Mark find out what was going on, I ran route and got: [...]
There is a `defaultroute' option for pppd. You might want to try
fiddling with that in /etc/ppp/options and see if it does something.
In any case, you should be able to put any `route' commands you need
in the /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down} scripts. This would be just a kluge but
it would work, I guess. Not that I have actually ever tried something
like this, nor that I know anything about routing :)
kai
--
Life is hard and then you die.
Re: PPP link kills routing table
Eric == Eric Hoeltzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Eric I have had the same problem, I think, for some time. After Eric connecting to my isp's dialup with ppp route will just hang as Eric Mark mentioned. I have just merrily ignored it and manually Eric typed 'route add -net default ppp0' and then it works. Not a big Eric inconvienence, but I have been curious why this happens. I do Eric have defaultroute in my /etc/ppp/options. Eric Eric Hoeltzel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Try doing a route -n. This will list the routing table numerically - if you have no route to the nameserver listed in /etc/resolv.conf, then you can at least still get some feedback on routes that DO exist. Sorry that I can't help on your REAL problem of getting default routes right... Later, Dale
Re: PPP link kills routing table
On Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:52:53 +1000, Mark Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Mark I tried establishing a ppp link and found it didn't work. To Mark find out what was going on, I ran route and got: [...] There is a `defaultroute' option for pppd. You might want to try fiddling with that in /etc/ppp/options and see if it does something. I do use this option. I would like to solve this problem, but in the mean time, can someone please tell me what I should do to manually setup the routing table correctly. Thanks. Mark.
Re: PPP link kills routing table
On Wed, 19 Jun 1996 08:16:13 +1000, Mark Phillips
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Mark I do use this option.
Hm. I already thought so. I thought maybe *taking it out* would do
something useful.
Mark I would like to solve this problem, but in the mean time, can
Mark someone please tell me what I should do to manually setup the
Mark routing table correctly. Thanks.
Like I said, I don't really know what I'm talking about, but there are
scripts /etc/ppp/ip-{up,down}. Just put the necessary `route'
commands in there. I assume you know how to `route' manually as you
said you have done this in the past. Sadly, I *don't* know how to use
`route'.
hth,
kai
--
Life is hard and then you die.
Re: PPP link kills routing table
In your email to me, Mark Phillips, you wrote: On Tue, 18 Jun 1996 17:52:53 +1000, Mark Phillips [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Mark I tried establishing a ppp link and found it didn't work. To Mark find out what was going on, I ran route and got: [...] There is a `defaultroute' option for pppd. You might want to try fiddling with that in /etc/ppp/options and see if it does something. I do use this option. I would like to solve this problem, but in the mean time, can someone please tell me what I should do to manually setup the routing table correctly. Thanks. Bear in mind that the pppd default route will *not* overwrite the eth0 (or any other) default route. Tim -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Very Pete Townshendish. Who? Exactly. -- Anon ** Disclaimer: My views/comments/beliefs, as strange as they are, are my own.**
PPP link kills routing table
Hi, Thank's to all the people who have helped me recently. Every time I solve one problem, another appears. I tried establishing a ppp link and found it didn't work. To find out what was going on, I ran route and got: # route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface and then route just hung. When pppd was not connected, I got: # route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface localnet* 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 1 eth0 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 6 lo default * 0.0.0.0 U 1 0 12 eth0 or, doing route -n: # route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.1.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 1 eth0 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 6 lo 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 U 1 0 12 eth0 I tried several things to try and get it to work. Previously ppp had worked when I had nothing in my /etc/modules file, so I tried commenting out the entries and rebooted. PPP now works (as you can see by the fact that I am typing this), however I think ppp working is the result of a side effect: namely, that as a result my local ethernet network wasn't setup. If I now type route, before running pppd, I get: # route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface localhost * 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 2 lo And with pppd running I get: # route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface localhost * 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 2 lo annex05.cc.flin * 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 0 ppp0 default annex05.cc.flin 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 3 ppp0 So the question is: what is wrong? Why can't I run the ethernet network and pppd at the same time? I could with my old slackware system. Thank's for your help, Mark Phillips. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) P.S. I'm not convinced it is a problem with the ethernet network because I think (but am not sure) that I may have previously had a debian system working with both pppd and ethernet running simultaneously, though, if I remember rightly, I routed ethernet manually that time.
Re: PPP link kills routing table
I have had the same problem, I think, for some time. After connecting to my isp's dialup with ppp route will just hang as Mark mentioned. I have just merrily ignored it and manually typed 'route add -net default ppp0' and then it works. Not a big inconvienence, but I have been curious why this happens. I do have defaultroute in my /etc/ppp/options. Eric Hoeltzel ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) On Tue, 18 Jun 1996, Mark Phillips wrote: Hi, Thank's to all the people who have helped me recently. Every time I solve one problem, another appears. I tried establishing a ppp link and found it didn't work. To find out what was going on, I ran route and got: # route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface and then route just hung. When pppd was not connected, I got: # route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface localnet* 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 1 eth0 127.0.0.0 * 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 6 lo default * 0.0.0.0 U 1 0 12 eth0 or, doing route -n: # route -n Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface 192.1.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 0 1 eth0 127.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0 U 0 0 6 lo 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 U 1 0 12 eth0 I tried several things to try and get it to work. Previously ppp had worked when I had nothing in my /etc/modules file, so I tried commenting out the entries and rebooted. PPP now works (as you can see by the fact that I am typing this), however I think ppp working is the result of a side effect: namely, that as a result my local ethernet network wasn't setup. If I now type route, before running pppd, I get: # route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface localhost * 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 2 lo And with pppd running I get: # route Kernel IP routing table Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric Ref Use Iface localhost * 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 2 lo annex05.cc.flin * 255.255.255.255 UH0 0 0 ppp0 default annex05.cc.flin 0.0.0.0 UG0 0 3 ppp0 So the question is: what is wrong? Why can't I run the ethernet network and pppd at the same time? I could with my old slackware system. Thank's for your help, Mark Phillips. ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) P.S. I'm not convinced it is a problem with the ethernet network because I think (but am not sure) that I may have previously had a debian system working with both pppd and ethernet running simultaneously, though, if I remember rightly, I routed ethernet manually that time.
