[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: LAN help requested



On Jun 12, Tony Firecloud wrote:
>
> I was using an incorrect patch cord; now i have store-bought
> crossover cables; i'm still not getting something. The below 
> paste is self-expanatory:
> (The hosts are directly cabled NIC to NIC with a crossover cable)
> 
>   From host I
> makua:~# ifconfig
> eth0      Link encap:Ethernet  HWaddr 00:10:5A:1B:F3:6B  
>           inet addr:10.0.0.1  Bcast:10.255.255.255  Mask:255.0.0.0
>           UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
>           RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>           TX packets:3 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
>           collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 
>           RX bytes:0 (0.0 b)  TX bytes:180 (180.0 b)
>           Interrupt:10 Base address:0xf480 
>
thats a darn strange netmask for a local network.  You are supporting 2^{24}
(16.7 million) hosts in the same 'local' neighbourhood.

try 'ifconfig eth0 10.0.0.1 netmask 255.255.255.0 up' instead.
 
>   From host II
> firecloud:~# ifconfig
> eth0	Link encap:Ethernet	HWaddr 00:10:A4:E8:13:8F
> 	inet addr:10.0.0.3  Bcast:10.255.255.255  Mask:255.0.0.0
> 	UP BROADCAST RUNNING MULTICAST  MTU:1500  Metric:1
> 	RX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 frame:0
>         TX packets:0 errors:0 dropped:0 overruns:0 carrier:0
> 	collisions:0 txqueuelen:100 
>         RX bytes:0 (0.0 b)  TX bytes:0 (0.0 b)
>         Interrupt:11 Base address:0x4000 
> 
same here but instead
'ifconfig eth0 10.0.0.3 netmask 255.255.255.0'.

Just a side note worth mentioning.  The 10.x.x.x region is really only worth
it for *large* multi-site networks.  172.16.x.x->172.32.x.x is suitable for
'medium' networks and 192.168.x.x is great for home networks, and other small
scale stuff.  There is not real advantage/disadvantages between the lot
however the 'convention' for home stuff is 192.168.x.x, in my experience
lusers into quake multiplayer use 10.x.x.x :)  And that can only be a bad
thing, 0verkill is much more suitable.

Anyway this should not be effecting your network anyway.  I feel a nastier
problem is at foot, or something :)

Probably something wrong with the 'medium' settings.  Both are set to _half_
duplex 10Mbps (or 100Mbps) speed right?

The only other idea I would have is that you have some voodoo
iptables/ipchains ruleset on one of the machines preventing the packets
actually transmitting/receiving.......

good luck

Alex

-- 
 ________________________ 
< Above all else -- sky. >
 ------------------------ 
        \   ^__^
         \  (oo)\_______
            (__)\       )\/\
                ||----w |
                ||     ||

Attachment: pgpPOCnVJWoBg.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: