[ale] home networking difficulties

[Andrew Grimmke]

I installed WINdump to get a look at the packets on the
other side.  It looks to me like we have a network
here.  I just don't understand why I can't ping?

10:58:14.810511 arp who-has 192.168.1.1 tell 192.168.1.2
19:34:02.838632 arp reply 192.168.1.1 is-at
0:7:95:ba:e6:e9
19:34:04.384065 arp who-has 192.168.1.1 tell 192.168.1.2
19:34:04.384187 arp reply 192.168.1.1 is-at
0:7:95:ba:e6:e9
19:34:05.383939 arp who-has 192.168.1.1 tell 192.168.1.2
19:34:05.384063 arp reply 192.168.1.1 is-at
0:7:95:ba:e6:e9
19:34:07.883833 arp who-has 192.168.1.1 tell 192.168.1.2
19:34:07.883965 arp reply 192.168.1.1 is-at
0:7:95:ba:e6:e9
19:34:11.808633 arp who-has 192.168.1.1 tell 192.168.1.2
19:34:11.808757 arp reply 192.168.1.1 is-at
0:7:95:ba:e6:e9
19:34:20.900374 arp who-has 192.168.1.1 tell 192.168.1.2
19:34:20.900495 arp reply 192.168.1.1 is-at
0:7:95:ba:e6:e9
19:34:22.398334 arp who-has 192.168.1.1 tell 192.168.1.2
19:34:22.398456 arp reply 192.168.1.1 is-at
0:7:95:ba:e6:e9
19:34:25.330359 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: icmp: echo
request (DF)
19:34:25.898151 arp who-has 192.168.1.1 tell 192.168.1.2
19:34:25.898282 arp reply 192.168.1.1 is-at
0:7:95:ba:e6:e9
19:34:26.341928 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: icmp: echo
request (DF)
19:34:27.341931 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: icmp: echo
request (DF)
19:34:28.341902 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: icmp: echo
request (DF)
19:34:29.341891 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: icmp: echo
request (DF)
19:34:30.341877 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: icmp: echo
request (DF)
19:34:30.400143 arp who-has 192.168.1.1 tell 192.168.1.2
19:34:30.400277 arp reply 192.168.1.1 is-at
0:7:95:ba:e6:e9
19:34:31.341849 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: icmp: echo
request (DF)
19:34:32.341827 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: icmp: echo
request (DF)
19:34:33.341818 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: icmp: echo
request (DF)
19:34:34.341797 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: icmp: echo
request (DF)
19:34:35.341789 192.168.1.1 > 192.168.1.2: icmp: echo
request (DF)
19:34:36.341700 arp who-has 192.168.1.2 tell 192.168.1.1
19:34:37.341687 arp who-has 192.168.1.2 tell 192.168.1.1
19:34:38.341665 arp who-has 192.168.1.2 tell 192.168.1.1
10:58:51.309583 arp who-has 192.168.1.2 tell 192.168.1.1
19:34:39.341731 arp reply 192.168.1.2 is-at
19:2:16:8:1:2


On Fri, 16 August 2002, "Andrew Grimmke" wrote:

> 
> well.  here's what I have:
> 
> 
> TCPdump output
> 
> 05:37:11.991603 arp who-has 192.168.1.1 tell
192.168.1.2
> 05:37:11.991642 arp reply 192.168.1.1 is-at
> 0:7:95:ba:e6:e9
> 05:37:11.991734 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: icmp:
echo
> request
> 05:37:16.222541 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: icmp:
echo
> request
> 05:37:20.722458 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: icmp:
echo
> request
> 05:37:25.222380 192.168.1.2 > 192.168.1.1: icmp:
echo
> request
> 
> Kernel IP routing table
> Destination     Gateway         Genmask         Flags
> Metric Ref    Use Iface
> 65.188.226.XXX   *               255.255.255.252 U    
> 0      0        0 eth0
> 192.168.1.0     *               255.255.255.0   U    

>      0        0 eth1
> 192.168.0.0     *               255.255.255.0   U    

>      0        0 eth1
> 192.168.0.0     *               255.255.255.0   U    

>      0        0 eth1
> 127.0.0.0       *               255.0.0.0       U    

>      0        0 lo
> default         dsl-65-188-226- 0.0.0.0         UG   

>      0        0 eth0
> 
> Of course the XXX was added by me. 
> 
> I have networked on 192.168.0.X and it seems that eth1
> is still trying to recognize that subnet. Not sure
why 
> twice.  
> 
> Does anything else jump out?
> 
> 
> On Fri, 16 August 2002, Geoffrey wrote:
> > 
> > Andrew Grimmke wrote:
> > Thanks geoffrey,
> >  
> > I'd suggest firing up tcpdump or ethereal on your
> > Redhat box nic that's connected to your internal
> > network.
> > See if anything is coming from that side.
> >  
> >  
> > I assume something like
> > tcpdump -i eth1
> > would work
> > 
> > yes, as long as eth1 is the nic on your inside
> network.
> > 
> > 
> > then ping from the windows box.
> >  
> >  
> > Also, what does your routing look like on the
Redhat
> > box?
> > 
> >  
> >  
> > I'm not sure what you mean here?  should I
provide the
> > output from the route command?
> > 
> > yes.
> > 
> > -- 
> > Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at 3times25.net
> > 
> > I didn't have to buy my radio from a specific
company
> > to listen
> > to FM, why doesn't that apply to the Internet
> > (anymore...)?
> 
> Andrew Grimmke
> Marietta, Georgia
> 
> ---
> This message has been sent through the ALE general
> discussion list.
> See <a
href="http://mail.directvinternet.com//jump/http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml">http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml</a> for more
> info. Problems should be 
> sent to listmaster at ale dot org.

Andrew Grimmke
Marietta, Georgia

---
This message has been sent through the ALE general discussion list.
See http://www.ale.org/mailing-lists.shtml for more info. Problems should be 
sent to listmaster at ale dot org.