On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Edward Ned Harvey <[email protected]>wrote:
> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > > On Behalf Of John BORIS > > > > Tom, > > it seems you uncovered a problem. When I try what you suggest I get > > this: I changed things as far as the machine name but I used the Fully > > Qualified name. > > > > telnet webserver.fqdn.org 80 > > Trying xxx.xx.xx.99... > > telnet: connect to address xxx.xx.xx.99: No route to host > > telnet: Unable to connect to remote host: No route to host > > > > So to make sure things are correct I did the same thing to a Web Server > > on a different machine on the same network and got this: > > > > # telnet different.webserver.org 80 > > Trying xxx.xx.xx.110... > > Connected to different.webserver.org (xxx.xx.xx.110). > > Escape character is '^]'. > > bye > > Connection closed by foreign host. > > > > I did this from the same host on the same network. So something is > > whacky on the routes. > > Based on the above, I disagree with the conclusion of problematic routes. > If you're all in the same subnet, plugged into the same switch, then routes > should not be relevant. (Unless you configured a static route > intentionally > and incorrectly for some reason. ;-) > > If you're on the same subnet, and you telnet port 80 of the server and get > no response... It means the server is not listening to port 80. It could > be either the server's firewall... Or the apache config file doesn't > specify to listen on all interfaces... Or something like that. I agree. I would go to the server and do a "netstat -tln" and see if port 80 is listening on the ip bound to eth0 (or 0.0.0.0) or only to localhost (127.0.0.1).
_______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
