[gentoo-user] problem pinging
After switch my home network from dhcp to static ip addresses, I just noticed I can't ping anything; although I can still goto any website and send this email. I have a Linksys BEFW11S4 router with two computers behind it, on this gentoo laptop I have my wireless card setup as such: iface_eth1=192.168.1.4 broadcast 192.168.1.255 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway=eth1/192.168.1.1 If I try something like this, ping tsn.ca I get: PING tsn.ca (199.246.67.211) 56(84) bytes of data. --- tsn.ca ping statistics --- 72 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 71011ms I get: or ping 192.168.1.2 (the other pc on the lan), I get: PING 192.168.1.2 (192.168.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data. From 192.168.1.3 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.3 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.3 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable --- 192.168.1.2 ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 0 received, +3 errors, 100% packet loss, time 2999ms , pipe 3 I get same result as above for pinging the router. Did I miss something when setting up the static ip addresses? Tom -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] problem pinging
On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Tom Hosiawa wrote: After switch my home network from dhcp to static ip addresses, I just noticed I can't ping anything; although I can still goto any website and send this email. I have a Linksys BEFW11S4 router with two computers behind it, on this gentoo laptop I have my wireless card setup as such: iface_eth1=192.168.1.4 broadcast 192.168.1.255 netmask 255.255.255.0 gateway=eth1/192.168.1.1 What is the output of 'route -n'? Also, since this is eth1, I'm assuming you also have an eth0 configured. Does that also have a default gateway? -- Marshal Newrock, unemployed Linux user in Lansing, MI Caution: Product will be hot after heating -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] problem pinging
What is the output of 'route -n'? Also, since this is eth1, I'm assuming you also have an eth0 configured. Does that also have a default gateway? results of 'route -n': 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 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 eth1 127.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 255.0.0.0 UG0 00 lo 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG1 00 eth1 eth0 is just a pci nic on the laptop, something interesting though, if I plug in the ethernet cable to it I can ping the router and my other pc but still not the outside world. I set the default gateway for eth1 too, gateway=eth0/192.168.1.1, but this must be wrong since if I stop eth1 I can't go to any website. Tom -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] problem pinging
Tom Hosiawa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) scribbled: What is the output of 'route -n'? Also, since this is eth1, I'm assuming you also have an eth0 configured. Does that also have a default gateway? results of 'route -n': 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 192.168.1.0 0.0.0.0 255.255.255.0 U 0 00 eth1 127.0.0.0 127.0.0.1 255.0.0.0 UG0 00 lo 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG1 00 eth1 eth0 is just a pci nic on the laptop, something interesting though, if I plug in the ethernet cable to it I can ping the router and my other pc but still not the outside world. I set the default gateway for eth1 too, gateway=eth0/192.168.1.1, but this must be wrong since if I stop eth1 I can't go to any website. What is the output of ifconfig? Are you running both nic's simultaneously? It sounds like TCP is working (guarantees trans/rcv), while UDP/ICMP is not (no guarantee). Although I forget if mail is UDP or TCP. When I run multiple nic's at work, I have (luckily) always had to keep them on separate subnets. Makes this stuff a lot easier. If nothing turns up I would suggest getting one working with the other totally not present. Then get the other working on a different subnet. eg: eth0 192.168.1.x netmask 255.255.255.0 # 10/100 eth1 192.168.2.y netmask 255.255.255.0 # wireless HTH, Cooper. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] problem pinging
What is the output of ifconfig? Are you running both nic's simultaneously? It sounds like TCP is working (guarantees trans/rcv), while UDP/ICMP is not (no guarantee). Although I forget if mail is UDP or TCP. When I run multiple nic's at work, I have (luckily) always had to keep them on separate subnets. Makes this stuff a lot easier. If nothing turns up I would suggest getting one working with the other totally not present. Then get the other working on a different subnet. eg: eth0 192.168.1.x netmask 255.255.255.0 # 10/100 eth1 192.168.2.y netmask 255.255.255.0 # wireless HTH, Cooper. Yeah I'm running both nic's simultaneously, but use the wireless connection most of the time. ifconfig results: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:08:0D:8A:6A:0A inet addr:192.168.1.3 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:174 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:281 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:20182 (19.7 Kb) TX bytes:39817 (38.8 Kb) Interrupt:11 Base address:0xdf40 Memory:fceff000-fceff038 eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:06:25:2B:1A:54 inet addr:192.168.1.4 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:6543 errors:2348 dropped:2348 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:5961 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:3456252 (3.2 Mb) TX bytes:1049310 (1.0 Mb) Interrupt:3 Base address:0x100 loLink encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:6223 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:6223 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:328508 (320.8 Kb) TX bytes:328508 (320.8 Kb) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] problem pinging
Tom, I would guess that your problem is due to having both devices initialized when only one is actually connected. Due to the change to a static ip, eth0 will be initialized whenever the nic drivers are loaded, regardless of whether or not eth0 is actually connected to the network. To test this possibility take down eth0 when you are trying to use just the wireless connection with 'ifconfig eth0 down' and then ping the router. For a bit more in depth explanation see my responses below. On Mon, 2003-09-01 at 17:08, Tom Hosiawa wrote: snip Yeah I'm running both nic's simultaneously, but use the wireless connection most of the time. If you are only using the wireless connection this is likely to cause problems when communicating with local systems as the data may be sent over eth0 or 192.168.1.3. For example your ping results: or ping 192.168.1.2 (the other pc on the lan), I get: PING 192.168.1.2 (192.168.1.2) 56(84) bytes of data. From 192.168.1.3 icmp_seq=1 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.3 icmp_seq=2 Destination Host Unreachable From 192.168.1.3 icmp_seq=3 Destination Host Unreachable ^ 192.168.1.3 is referenced as eth0 based on your ifconfig results. ifconfig results: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:08:0D:8A:6A:0A inet addr:192.168.1.3 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 snip eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:06:25:2B:1A:54 inet addr:192.168.1.4 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 You seem to be able to access the outside world due to the specification of eth1/192.168.1.1 as your gateway. Your routing table confirms this: 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG1 0 0 eth1 As an aside you are unable to ping tsn.ca because it doesn't appear to respond to icmp echo requests. From my machine: $ ping -c4 tsn.ca PING tsn.ca (199.246.67.211) 56(84) bytes of data. --- tsn.ca ping statistics --- 4 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 3013ms but... $ ping -c2 www.google.com PING www.google.com (216.239.51.99) 56(84) bytes of data. 64 bytes from 216.239.51.99: icmp_seq=1 ttl=49 time=89.0 ms 64 bytes from 216.239.51.99: icmp_seq=2 ttl=49 time=88.0 ms --- www.google.com ping statistics --- 2 packets transmitted, 2 received, 0% packet loss, time 1005ms rtt min/avg/max/mdev = 88.007/88.505/89.003/0.498 ms Hope this helps, Doug -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] problem pinging
I would guess that your problem is due to having both devices initialized when only one is actually connected. Due to the change to a static ip, eth0 will be initialized whenever the nic drivers are loaded, regardless of whether or not eth0 is actually connected to the network. To test this possibility take down eth0 when you are trying to use just the wireless connection with 'ifconfig eth0 down' and then ping the router. For a bit more in depth explanation see my responses below. That seems to be it, all is good now Thanks Tom -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] problem pinging
Tom Hosiawa ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) scribbled: What is the output of ifconfig? Are you running both nic's simultaneously? It sounds like TCP is working (guarantees trans/rcv), while UDP/ICMP is not (no guarantee). Although I forget if mail is UDP or TCP. When I run multiple nic's at work, I have (luckily) always had to keep them on separate subnets. Makes this stuff a lot easier. If nothing turns up I would suggest getting one working with the other totally not present. Then get the other working on a different subnet. eg: eth0 192.168.1.x netmask 255.255.255.0 # 10/100 eth1 192.168.2.y netmask 255.255.255.0 # wireless HTH, Cooper. Yeah I'm running both nic's simultaneously, but use the wireless connection most of the time. ifconfig results: eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:08:0D:8A:6A:0A inet addr:192.168.1.3 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:174 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:281 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:20182 (19.7 Kb) TX bytes:39817 (38.8 Kb) Interrupt:11 Base address:0xdf40 Memory:fceff000-fceff038 eth1 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:06:25:2B:1A:54 inet addr:192.168.1.4 Bcast:192.168.1.255 Mask:255.255.255.0 UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST MTU:1500 Metric:1 RX packets:6543 errors:2348 dropped:2348 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:5961 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 RX bytes:3456252 (3.2 Mb) TX bytes:1049310 (1.0 Mb) Interrupt:3 Base address:0x100 loLink encap:Local Loopback inet addr:127.0.0.1 Mask:255.0.0.0 UP LOOPBACK RUNNING MTU:16436 Metric:1 RX packets:6223 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0 TX packets:6223 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0 collisions:0 txqueuelen:0 RX bytes:328508 (320.8 Kb) TX bytes:328508 (320.8 Kb) Okay, I've worked myself through three solutions only to realize I was wrong, hopefully this is the right one. It's been a long day. :) Remove the gateway parameter (gateway=eth1/192.168.1.1) from each of your iface's. Restart both devices, and check 'route -n'. Ensure the default gateway is still the last entry present: 0.0.0.0 192.168.1.1 0.0.0.0 UG1 00 eth1 If not, add it manually with: # route add default gw 192.168.1.1 Hopefully this will work. If not, you will soon become intimate with traceroute, tcpdump, ifconfig, and route. Your other option is to only activate one device at a time on the same subnet from the same machine. If you want to give it try: # ifconfig eth0 down I think the problem lies in having two paths with which to reach the GW. TCP connections catch this error because they have to handshake and guarantee data xmt/rcv. UDP/ICMP are fire and forget. So if those packets hit an error, they're lost. If anyone is sitting out there chuckling, please fill us in. routing tables et al are still a little voodoo magic to me. *8v) Cooper. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] problem pinging
# route add default gw 192.168.1.1 had to do route add default gw 192.168.1.1 dev eth1 since it did it for eth0 by default I think the problem lies in having two paths with which to reach the GW. TCP connections catch this error because they have to handshake and guarantee data xmt/rcv. UDP/ICMP are fire and forget. So if those packets hit an error, they're lost. I'll stick with not starting up eth0 if I'm not using it Tom -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
