Debian networking help....
in [Linux Networking]
|
From: Pascal Hambourg on 17 Jun 2010 13:22 Shawn a �crit : > > When I changed the netmask and restarted networking this had no > effect. > > However upon rebooting with just the netmask changed in the interfaces > file got this working. I did not need to add the route to the > machine. Err... Having the system accept the setting does not imply it does what you expect. Beware the side effects of an improper netmask.
From: Moe Trin on 17 Jun 2010 15:38 On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in article <3eabd401-cd77-40cf-9381-c8515fd3597d(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, Shawn wrote: NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server. >"You've said that 146.243.56.0 - 146.243.57.255 is on the eth0 >interface. Where is 146.243.124.1?" >Same interface. >", and gateways MUST BE locally reachable. " >Works fine on OSX and on Windows, and other network devices like >printers, iPhones (via a wireless AP)...etc...etc. They may be doing >something internally behind the scenes but no extra routing is entered >on them by a user. Did you discuss this with your network administrator? Perhaps he can come up with an explanation for the rather... incredible (trying to be polite) routing setup. Some would call this absolute stupidity, but that's still being polite. Let me repeat this: TALK TO YOUR NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR. The whizzo who designed the network have put multiple logical networks on a single physical network - why is anyones guess, but it serves no useful purpose other than to befuddle the inexperienced. In article <eef7aa76-4694-44f3-bfe4-ae261896c9e3(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> you show the output of running 'netstat -nr' on 146.243.56.254, and it shows a "host" route that has been added to 146.243.124.1. Doing the same on the Debian box would solve this - but it makes one wonder what other ``interesting'' things have been done on this network. Glad it's your problem, not mine. Old guy
From: Moe Trin on 17 Jun 2010 15:38 On 17 Jun 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in article <4c19f1ba$0$12127$4fafbaef(a)reader4.news.tin.it>, Enrico wrote: >Denis McMahon ha scritto: >> sudo route add host gw 146.243.124.1 eth0 sudo route add default gw >> 146.243.124.1 eth0 >You are forcing the situation. Why the default gateway is not into the >local IP range? "Security through Obscurity" That's probably the most polite explanation. Whoever designed the network had some wonderful idea, that putting separate networks on the same wire would serve some useful purpose. Quite wrong, but what can you say? Given the /23 netmask, it's probably someone beyond the MSCE level (MS was still teaching Classful masks ten years after RFC1519 introduced CIDR), but even that's questionable. Old guy
From: Pascal Hambourg on 17 Jun 2010 15:45 Pascal Hambourg a �crit : > > Yup, this looks so wrong... It looks like it assumes a classless mask of > 255.255.0.0 (/16) for the directed broadcast address 146.243.255.255. s/classless/classful/ Apologies.
From: Tauno Voipio on 17 Jun 2010 16:24
On 17.6.10 10:38 , Moe Trin wrote: > On Wed, 16 Jun 2010, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.networking, in > article<3eabd401-cd77-40cf-9381-c8515fd3597d(a)b35g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > Shawn wrote: > > NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically > reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server. > >> "You've said that 146.243.56.0 - 146.243.57.255 is on the eth0 >> interface. Where is 146.243.124.1?" > >> Same interface. > >> ", and gateways MUST BE locally reachable." > >> Works fine on OSX and on Windows, and other network devices like >> printers, iPhones (via a wireless AP)...etc...etc. They may be doing >> something internally behind the scenes but no extra routing is entered >> on them by a user. > > Did you discuss this with your network administrator? Perhaps he can > come up with an explanation for the rather... incredible (trying to > be polite) routing setup. Some would call this absolute stupidity, > but that's still being polite. Let me repeat this: TALK TO YOUR > NETWORK ADMINISTRATOR. > > The whizzo who designed the network have put multiple logical networks > on a single physical network - why is anyones guess, but it serves no > useful purpose other than to befuddle the inexperienced. > > In article<eef7aa76-4694-44f3-bfe4-ae261896c9e3(a)q12g2000yqj.googlegroups.com> > you show the output of running 'netstat -nr' on 146.243.56.254, and it > shows a "host" route that has been added to 146.243.124.1. Doing the > same on the Debian box would solve this - but it makes one wonder what > other ``interesting'' things have been done on this network. Glad it's > your problem, not mine. > > Old guy The network seems to belong to Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Information technology Division. I just wonder which kind of knowledge is used to run the network. I'm happy that I'm not a resident of Mass. -- Tauno Voipio, pretty old, as well (64 years) |