[ale] Local IP Non-Pingable on LAN from different Class C

Sun Jul 21 14:24:55 EDT 2002

Well, I just solved the problem, and it had nothing to do with netmasks.
In fact, it had absolutely nothing to do with network device configuration
at all. 

Silly me had 192.168.0.0/24 set in iptables as the only IP range allowed
to pass traffic via iptables, so I did a quick change to 192.168.0.0/23 to
allow both Class Cs to traverse. Flushed the rules, restarted everything,
and it's all working fine.

I *KNEW* it was going to be something simple.

At any rate, I would still very much like to know why you guys think I'm
misconfiguring my network. If I'm doing something wrong, please tell me,
as this really isn't one of my strengths. 

-- 
Christopher R. Curzio     |  Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax
http://www.accipiter.org  |  si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
:wq!

Thus Spake Kevin Krumwiede <krum at smyrnacable.net>:
21 Jul 2002 13:51:55 -0400

> On Sun, 2002-07-21 at 13:34, Christopher R. Curzio wrote:
> > No, that's not a typo. Obviously, I need 255.255.252.0 so machines on
> > 192.168.0.0/24 can communicate with machines on 192.168.1.0/24.
> 
> This makes absolutely no sense to me.  If you know something I don't,
> please explain it to me. :)
> 
> According to what I've learned (mostly from Scott Mann's _Linux TCP-IP
> Network Administration_), that's totally wrong.  Your netmasks doesn't
> correspond with what size you're saying the subnets are (/24).  /24
> *means* a netmask of 255.255.255.0.  255.255.252.0 specifies a /22.
> 
> The result, in this case, is that there is a range of addresses which
> will be unreachable because according to the netmask they are on the
> local network, whereas in reality they are on another subnet.
> 
> Krum
> 

---
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.